|
*** UPDATED x2 - Manar responds - Barickman explains *** Talks appear to break down, SB1 hold lifted
Monday, Jul 31, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller * The Senate has released the parliamentary hold on SB1. As I write this, however, it has not yet been officially sent to the governor. [ADDING: The bill has now been transmitted.] A little background from today…
The Democrats claimed that they were making progress. The Republicans obviously weren’t convinced. And away we go… *** UPDATE 1 *** Sen. Barickman told reporters this today…
Sen. Manar said he wouldn’t even respond to that. *** UPDATE 2 *** So, I bated Sen. Manar a little bit and he finally gave his side of the story, saying he wanted to be careful not to completely derail the talks. Manar’s version is vastly different than Barickman’s. According to Manar, the Democrats have been moving toward one of the Republicans’ chief demands and the Democrats left the meeting promising language within a few hours designed to address the demands. Manar says he thought there’d be another meeting later today. Instead, Barickman held a press conference to say the Democrats failed to make good on a promise to have language at the first afternoon meeting. Manar sounded stunned at this turn of events.
|
 |
|
|
- Blue Bayou - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 3:37 pm:
Any details on what Barickman’s “deal” was?
If this bill has so much support (including the reputed 90% by the Gov), then what is going to make it pass?
- Sue - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 3:38 pm:
There you go- Dems promised to send bill today and Manar won’t do it. Do much for holding to your commitments. The only compromise they are amenable to is for the Gov to sign SB1
- J IL - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 3:41 pm:
Did anybody really think that one side was going to be negotiating in good faith to the other side. I mean, this is getting so predictable it’s ridiculous. This was going to happen this way all along.
- Gruntled University Employee - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 3:41 pm:
===The only compromise they are amenable to is for the Gov to sign SB1===
The only compromise they are amenable to is for the Dem’s to accept 100% of what Bruce Rauner wants.
There, fixed it for ya’.
- Blue Bayou - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 3:44 pm:
Sue, what happens after they send it and BVR AVs it? What’s the goal of the education funding bill?
- Mama - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 3:45 pm:
“The only compromise they are amenable to is for the Dem’s to accept 100% of what Bruce Rauner wants.”
Everyone knows Rauner does not compromise.
- Annonin' - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 3:48 pm:
Sounds like “we just wanted a little more…” from the GOPies. Old song that has been sung many times with little success. Now GovJunk can add “vetoing historic school funding reform” to his other lst term accomplishments. Atta a boy. Heck of a job Brucie
- Opiate of the Masses - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 3:49 pm:
this is bad. if you saw the IPI piece yesterday you could see the gov wants no deal, he (they) want status quo and a mess. unfortunately, there is no status quo to return to.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 3:50 pm:
K-12 School funding?
Rauner vetoed that.
Rauner is now counting on concurrence to the AV…
“We’ll see… “
- Blue Bayou - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 3:50 pm:
Dave McKinney via twitter:
“SB1 is, in fact, “in the process” of going to Gov. Rauner per President Cullerton’s spokesman. Expecting movement in the next 15-30 mins.”
- Dee Lay - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 3:56 pm:
Barrickman: “Dems were supposed to give us a deal…”
Give them a deal? Not negotiate? Not come to terms? Not talk like adults?
Did he want orange slices after he was given a deal too?
- Fixer - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 3:59 pm:
Capitulation is not compromise. Seems Sen. Barrickman got his words confused.
- Experienced educator - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 4:00 pm:
Deja vu all over again. Republicans saying Dems aren’t dealing. Same song and dance back on May 31st. All spring all we have heard is we are so close, so close to a deal (budget) and they just walked away. Are Repubs doing that now?
I am so done with them all.
- Arsenal - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 4:00 pm:
==Dems promised to send bill today and Manar won’t do it.==
And so now that they are doing it?
- RNUG - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 4:04 pm:
== Barrickman: “Dems were supposed to give us a deal…” ==
Negotiations, especially when.you are in the minority position, are a matter of give and take.
Two questions:
What did the ILGOP (or Rauner) want?
And what did they offer in exchange?
- Norseman - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 4:14 pm:
Well said RNUG.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 4:29 pm:
“Barickman explains…”
If you’re explaining, you’re losing.
Rauner’s veto, AV as it may be, could very well be a veto blowing everything up…
Rauner will have completed, if the AV isn’t accepted, the complete and total vetoing of an existing budget, with no funding for K-12 schools
Think on this…
“… the complete and total vetoing of an existing budget, with no funding for K-12 schools”
This is the complete opposite of being a governor in any identified and objective measure of governing.
Welp, if that’s what Rauner wants, carrying that 63% disapproval…
- walker - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 4:35 pm:
Oh just shut up and do something.
- Michelle Flaherty - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 4:51 pm:
Hey Sue, welcome to reality.
Last Action
Date Chamber Action
7/31/2017 Senate Sent to the Governor
- Rod - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 5:04 pm:
Hopefully the bill is in the Governor’s hands by now. I assume he going to issue an AV of the lines added in the House that the Governor believes gives too much money to CPS. If the Democrats can’t get the votes to override, they should follow ARTICLE IV SECTION 9 (e) of the Constitution and accept the Governor’s modification of SB 1 by voting in their majority to agree to Governor Rauner’s modification so the over funding can flow to schools. Even though it is very possible ISBE and Comptroller will not have sufficient money to make full payments to school districts, including CPS, some funding is better than none.
- Huh? - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 5:05 pm:
Update number 2 seems to show a little bit of double-dealing by the republicans.
- Jocko - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 5:08 pm:
==Sen. Barickman says Dems not negotiating in good faith.==
Is this the same Barickman who said Rauner was willing to deal Thursday afternoon…only to take it back several hours later?
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 5:09 pm:
===If the Democrats can’t get the votes to override, they should follow ARTICLE IV SECTION 9 (e) of the Constitution and accept the Governor’s modification of SB 1 by voting in their majority to agree to Governor Rauner’s modification so the over funding can flow to schools.===
Why?
Rauner wants to pick winners and losers.
Let it all fail, off Rauner’s veto… then many lessons learned.
That, and where are the 71 and 36 you think are easily gotten?
- Arsenal - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 5:09 pm:
==Update number 2 seems to show a little bit of double-dealing by the republicans.==
It’s probably just the same thing we saw with the budget; Rauner didn’t communicate what he wanted and the Republicans weren’t empowered to make a deal.
- OurMagician - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 5:22 pm:
Sen. Manar should have realized by now that Jason Barickman shouldn’t be taken at his word. See his comments from last Thursday when what he said wasn’t what he meant.
- ste_with_a_v_en - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 5:37 pm:
“Let it all fail, off Rauner’s veto… then many lessons learned.”
Hey guys, let’s just not fund the schools. That’ll work
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 5:42 pm:
===Hey guys, let’s just not fund the schools. That’ll work===
Where o where is the 71?
Where o where will the 36 come from?
“Rauner vetoed that”
You must’ve forgot, they already passed school funding… Rauner’s AV might turn out to a full veto situation
- ste_with_a_v_en - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 5:59 pm:
“Rauner’s AV might turn out to a full veto situation”
And who’s fault would that be? If the general assembly wants to override, they clearly can do do.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 6:02 pm:
===And who’s fault would that be?===
Gov. Rauner’s. President Cullerton warned him.
Governors own vetoes
“We passed it, Rauner vetoed it”, lol
===If the general assembly wants to override, they clearly can do do.===
Where o where are the 71?
Can’t. Ken Dunkin and Matt Besler proved that 66 of 67 times.
K-12 funding? “Rauner vetoed that”
- Little Leroy - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 6:07 pm:
—And who’s fault would that be?—
That would be the Governor’s. Why would it be the Lege’s?
—If the general assembly wants to override, they clearly can do do—
How many times does Oswego Willy have to explain this?
- Mama - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 6:10 pm:
I have a feeling that Rauner wants to change the state Constitution to get rid of the pension clause. He also wants to move teachers’ pension to the school districts. The Dems do not want to change the pension clause. Plus they know the schools can not afford to take on extra expenses like teachers’ pension.
- Mama - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 6:20 pm:
“According to Manar, the Democrats have been moving toward one of the Republicans’ chief demands and the Democrats left the meeting promising language within a few hours designed to address the demands.”
What is the Republicans’ chief demands that the Dems agreed to give them?
Why did the Republicans derailed the Dem’s compromise in which they demanded?
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 6:23 pm:
Let’s review, shall we?
===And who’s fault would that be?===
Gov. Rauner’s. President Cullerton warned him.
Here’s the warning…
===Overriding the governor’s veto requires support from 3/5ths of the members in each chamber. That’s 36 votes in the Senate and 71 votes in the House.
But so too does accepting any changes. That’s because those changes amount to new laws with immediate effective dates since it would be passed after May 31. The Illinois Constitution sets a May 31 deadline for action and anything after requires more votes to become law.
Again, if efforts to override the governor or accept his alternations fail, the entire school funding overhaul fails and lawmakers would need to start over with new legislation.===
- Anonymous - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 6:26 pm:
How many votes are needed to accept an AV? Is it supermajority like an override or is it simple majority?
- Perrid - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 6:55 pm:
Not to be pedantic, but I think you meant “baited” Rich. And I get that “eye witness” accounts can be notoriously unreliable, but to me this sounds like someone, Barkickman or Manar, is outright lying about the meeting and the proposals, not just seeing things from a different perspective.
- RNUG - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 7:09 pm:
== How many votes are needed to accept an AV? Is it supermajority like an override or is it simple majority? ==
Supermajority required. 71 & 36
- PragmaticR - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 7:19 pm:
Given the likely voting patterns, there are only two plausible scenarios following an AV on SB1. First, the Governor’s AV is overridden by both chambers and the Governor solidifies his record of obstructionism without benefit. Second, the Governor’s AV is overridden in Senate, fails to be overridden in House, and the bill dies. In the second scenario, the Governor and the Republican party receives most of the blame for the resulting chaos that will affect downstate districts first. It is almost as if the Governor’s AV is designed to create a situation where Republicans downstate will actually prefer an override to the alternative. Legislators in both parties must understand the situation. Does the Governor?
- wordslinger - Monday, Jul 31, 17 @ 8:04 pm:
–Hey Sue, welcome to reality.–
I don’t think she’s going to stay.
Barickman’s accountings these days remind me of Terry Bevington explaining why he removed a pitcher when no one was even up in the bullpen.