*** UPDATE 1 *** Click here for the full text of the governor’s AV. And, again, watch our live coverage post for constant updates.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Here’s the relevant excerpt from the AV…
*** UPDATE 3 *** Gov. Rauner told reporters today that the Senate and House could accept his amendatory veto with a “simple majority.” Not true, says the Senate. Since we’re past the May 31st deadline for simple majorities, an acceptance motion would require three-fifths in each chamber. The governor seemed surprised about this and dodged a follow-up question from a reporter who asked whether his staff should have known such a thing. Oops.
…Adding… The governor’s office is now admitting that accepting the AV requires a three-fifths vote.
*** UPDATE 4 *** Most react will be on the live coverage post. But this is from the Pritzker campaign…
In response to Bruce Rauner issuing an amendatory veto on Senate Bill 1, a bill that funds schools and ensures they open on time, JB Pritzker released the following statement:
“Apparently 736 days worth of damage done by Bruce Rauner wasn’t enough. Now he is holding school funding for Illinois children and families hostage and pitting communities against each other again by vetoing Senate Bill 1,” said JB Pritzker. “Bruce Rauner is so blinded by his crusade against Chicago’s children and families that he seems incapable of understanding a very simple fact: every child and every school district benefits under SB 1. Even though he supports 90% of the bill, Rauner and his new team of radicals once again chose to use our kids, parents, and teachers as leverage to try and score a political win.”
*** UPDATE 5 *** Kennedy campaign…
This is a stunning low point in the history of our state. SB1 is a product of the governor’s own School Funding Reform Commission and his characterization of the bill as a bailout for Chicago has been debunked by the BGA and Politifact. Yet, Bruce Rauner chose political games over our children.
We need fundamental change in Springfield, including ending our reliance on a property tax system that inadequately funds our public schools. Today’s veto proves that Springfield is broken and Rauner will not lead Illinois toward real change.
*** UPDATE 6 *** Press release…
House Speaker Michael J. Madigan issued the following statement Tuesday:
“Governor Rauner’s decision to pit one child against another is disappointing, especially as Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate continue to meet and negotiate. The governor has yet again chosen crisis over compromise, but Democrats will continue to work with legislative Republicans in order to enact education funding that is fair to every student, every school and every community.”
[ *** End Of Updates *** ]
* Keep an eye on the live coverage post for updates. Here’s the full press release…
Today, Gov. Bruce Rauner issued an amendatory veto to Senate Bill 1, the school funding bill. The matter now heads to the Illinois General Assembly, where the governor has respectfully requested that lawmakers uphold his changes. If these changes are upheld, Illinois will achieve historic education funding reform.
“It doesn’t matter where you come from or who your family is. With a great education, you can go anywhere in life and be whomever you want to be. You can grow up, get a good job and provide for your family. That’s why the changes I have made to the education funding bill are so important,” Gov. Rauner said. “With my changes, our state ensures that enough resources flow to children in the poorest and most disadvantaged school districts across the entire state. And my changes ensure that the education funding system in our state is fair and equitable to all students in Illinois.”
More than a year ago, Gov. Rauner established the Illinois School Funding Reform Commission. This group came together on a bipartisan basis to study the way Illinois funds its public schools, and to chart a path to a fairer and more equitable system.
“These changes included in my amendatory veto reflect years of hard work by our education reform commission and our ability to overcome our political differences for the good of our young people’s futures,” Gov. Rauner said. “I urge the General Assembly to act quickly to accept these changes and let our students start school on time.”
The governor’s amendatory veto makes the following changes to ensure an adequate and equitable school funding formula:
• Maintains a per-district hold harmless until the 2020-2021 school year, and then moves to a per-pupil hold harmless based on a three-year rolling average of enrollment.
• Removes the minimum funding requirement. While the governor is committed to ensuring that the legislature satisfies its duty to fund schools, the proposed trigger of one percent of the overall adequacy target plus $93 million artificially inflates the minimum funding number and jeopardizes Tier II funding.
• Removes the Chicago block grant from the funding formula.
• Removes both Chicago Public Schools pension considerations from the formula: the normal cost pick-up and the unfunded liability deduction.
• Reintegrates the normal cost pick-up for Chicago Public Schools into the Pension Code where it belongs, and finally begins to treat Chicago like all other districts with regards to the State’s relationship with its teachers’ pensions.
• Eliminates the PTELL and TIF equalized assessed value subsidies that allow districts to continue under-reporting property wealth.
• Removes the escalators throughout the bill that automatically increase costs.
• Retains the floor for the regionalization factor, for the purposes of equity, and adds a cap, for the purposes of adequacy.
The amendatory veto also removes the accounting for future pension cost shifts to districts in the Adequacy Target. This prevents districts from ever fully taking responsibility for the normal costs of their teachers’ pensions.
Raw audio of the presser is here.
- J IL - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:19 am:
Not surprised…he said he was going to do it.
- NorthsideNoMore - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:21 am:
A man of his word…. So now what?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:23 am:
I had the “Over/Under” on the AV at 10:33am…
The “Under” won.
Heh.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:25 am:
Rauner needs 71 and 36 to accept.
That’s, of course, if there isn’t a side deal to get those numbers for something in trade.
“We’ll see”
- Dude - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:28 am:
Oh brother…. buckle the seat belts, tighten the chin straps and any other cliche’ you can think of. This is going to be a long few weeks/months. The Rauner owned IL GOP is going to lose…again. Good grief.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:33 am:
This amounts to a full veto. He’s overstepped here.
- Real - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:37 am:
It would be a good time for Chance the rapper to provide some input. Obviously Rauner has issues with CPS and low income people.
- Dingle - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:38 am:
Is adding several paragraphs of language allowable under an amendatory veto? It all seems like a bit much.
- Jim Morley - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:38 am:
How sad that Illinois citizens & their elected representatives can’t understand the value of fully funding good education for all our children. Greed prevails!
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:39 am:
==Is adding several paragraphs of language allowable under an amendatory veto?==
In the traditional, valid sense? No. So, no.
- Sgt. Slaughter - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:41 am:
Wow was he poorly prepared for the questions on specifics. That issue of whether it only takes a simple majority to accept his changes is a major, embarrassing blunder. What an excrement show that presser was.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:43 am:
==The governor seemed surprised about this and dodged a follow-up question from a reporter who asked whether his staff should have known such a thing. Oops==
Can’t get bogged down with such legal Mumbai jumbo. What’s important is the, uh, messagin’.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:43 am:
That’s incredible, that he doesn’t even know how many votes he needs.
- 360 Degree TurnAround - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:44 am:
Let this veto sit and rot. It will be owned by the Governor and his republican allies.
- Nick Name - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:45 am:
“The governor seemed surprised about this and dodged a follow-up question from a reporter who asked whether his staff should have known such a thing.”
L, as they say, OL.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:47 am:
Dear Gov. Rauner,
President Cullerton tried to explain this to you…
===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.===
Please, do keep up.
- Ooops - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:47 am:
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-gubernatorial-veto-procedures/
- Robert the Bruce - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:47 am:
re: the 3/5 rule, Big oops, an unforced error.
A call to Brady/Durkin, and the Rauner staff could’ve been better informed.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:48 am:
Enough of Pritzker already.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:48 am:
I’m embarrassed…
..,this governor has no clue… how things work.
- Grand Avenue - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:48 am:
The 3/5 v simple majority depends on the definition of when a law is “passed”.
I would argue that the Governor could not have even signed SB1 if he wanted to because since the Senate held the Bill, it did not actually pass until 7/31 - so it did not have the 3/5 to take immediate effect.
- Markus - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:49 am:
So when the AV is declared unconstitutional does SB1 stand as presented to the gov?
- Grand Avenue - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:49 am:
In fact, it says right here, the Bill did not pass both houses until 7/31, so Rauner could not have even signed it because it did not pass until after May 31
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1&GAID=14&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=98844&SessionID=91&GA=100
- Deputy Registrar - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:50 am:
Illinois Retired Teachers Association has posted on their Facebook page. The headline says “Rauner vetoes Education Bill” Governors own, as they say.
- Anon221 - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:51 am:
Rauner is becoming more Trumpian every day. Surprised about the needed votes for an override… Banned word with exclamation point.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:52 am:
=== Is adding several paragraphs of language allowable under an amendatory veto? It all seems like a bit much. ===
The scope of amendatory vetoes have been a contentious issue for a long time. Of late, Madigan has been hold AVs he believes go beyond the scope allowed under the constitution. Of course, that is his subjective opinion. Following is an excerpt from LRU’s Annotated Constitution publication. http://bit.ly/2u0kKQh
- Sue - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:52 am:
Are we not all glad that despite all of our problems in Illinois we have a candidate who stated his reason for wanting to be Governor is to lead the Trump resistance.
- Hamlet's Ghost - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:52 am:
== So when the AV is declared unconstitutional does SB1 stand as presented to the gov? ==
I believe this is where we are at:
The AV stands as a veto of SB1 - going forward nothing passes without 3/5ths - not even the Governor’s AV
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:53 am:
==Enough of Pritzker already.==
Easy to tell who’s touching a nerve.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:53 am:
==I would argue…it did not actually pass until 7/31==
You could argue that. Of course, you’re wrong, terribly wrong, but you’re free to argue it.
- Nick Name - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:54 am:
–Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:48 am:
Enough of Pritzker already.–
Diana Rauner, is that you?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:54 am:
To Pritzker Crew,
That is some top shelf work.
The reason it’s as good as it is?
If the AV acceptance fails, the message here can have legs and build upon itself to continue the negative Rauner react.
It’s important for campaigns to respond. It’s even more important to have an idea how your responding and what it means in context.
Top shelf.
- A Jack - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:56 am:
Those alterations don’t look proper to me. I don’t think you can make suggestions on changing the pension code for an AV on school funding.
- Grand Avenue - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:56 am:
I mean “does holding a bill that was concurred before June 1″
- Grand Avenue - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:57 am:
So the question is - is a bill passed when both houses concur, or when it is sent to the Governor?
- Markus - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:57 am:
There is an argument to be made that an unconstitutional veto is no veto at all. Just a missed opportunity for the governor based on his own illegal act. The same as never signing it al all.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:58 am:
=== Bill did not pass both houses until 7/31 ===
The final roll call occurred before. I don’t know if there is any case law on the subject. It would be an interesting debate, but I’d place money on the court considering the final roll call to be the relevant date.
- Nick Name - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:58 am:
“In fact, it says right here, the Bill did not pass both houses until 7/31,”
The Senate votes to concur with the two House amendments were on May 31. That is the date the bill passed both Houses. July 31 is merely the date Sen. Trotter withdrew his motion.
- JPC - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 10:59 am:
Anyone have an answer to @Grand Avenue’s question, I’m curious.
- Hamlet's Ghost - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:01 am:
@JPC
== Anyone have an answer to @Grand Avenue’s question, I’m curious. ==
Interesting question, perhaps, but given the AV, I believe it’s now moot.
- Robert the Bruce - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:01 am:
So what’s next - a temporary 3-6 month same rate as last year funding for each school district so schools can open?
- Norseman - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:02 am:
Sue, yes. Rauner sat around twiddling his thumbs as Trump and the GOP was considering legislation that would have further exacerbated IL finances.
- George - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:02 am:
The fact the governor didn’t know how many votes he needs is such incredible political malpractice that you’d be forgiven if you assume his staff is comprised of nothing but a bunch of ideologues with no relevant governmental or legal experience.
- Blue dog dem - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:05 am:
With that 19% voter turnout expected in Chicago, is it a wonder why politics are at play here?
- Free Set of Steak Knives - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:05 am:
The fact Rauner and his staff don’t know how many votes are needed to accept his veto tells you they never had any intention of passing his amendatory changes.
The goal is to kill the deal.
- just askin' - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:06 am:
So Rauner says Chicago has to keep bailing out downstate, but not vice versa?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:09 am:
===We need fundamental change in Springfield, including ending our reliance on a property tax system that inadequately funds our public schools. Today’s veto proves that Springfield is broken and Rauner will not lead Illinois toward real change===
Kennedy’s Crew does a great job here, but not top shelf.
This obsession with property taxes when the issue has a regional divide that is more pressing, that’s where it loses some points.
- Ginohouse Tommy - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:10 am:
He owns it now. It’s all his. He thought I finally got my way Now do as I say. It seems that no one bothered to tell what it takes to pass the funding bill after the override. Either they didn’t tell him or they didn’t know. His staffs education continues and this time the mistake could be costly if not corrected.
- Anon - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:12 am:
There’s nothing in the state Constitution requiring 3/5ths to accept a governor’s AV. Heck, if passage counts as 5/31, despite holding the bill for two months, there’s not exactly moral high ground to object either.
The IL Const says an AV’d “bill shall be considered in the same manner as a vetoed bill but the specific recommendations may be accepted by a record vote of a majority of the members elected to each house.” (IV, 9, e). There’s nothing in there about requiring a change in effective date language, depending on when the AV is accepted. We don’t force effective date changes for other vetoed bills.
As well, there’s no restriction in the IL Constitution on the limit of the governor’s power to make “specific recommendations.” House & Senate may have self-imposed limits on AVs in their Rules, but that wouldn’t be a limit on the power of the Executive Branch.
- Retired Educator - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:12 am:
Well folks, the Governor obviously thinks he is a gunslinger. He shoots and has no idea what the target is. I think a man with Durkin, Brady, and the new Super Duper Stars should know how many votes are needed. Are we to believe that even rudimentary conversations about votes needed, are now banned in the Governor’s office? Don’t these people even talk to each other? This is the height of amateur hour.
- Lottie O'Neill - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:15 am:
For cryin’ out loud, AV process is right there on the ILGA website for anyone to look up.
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lis/98bill_law.pdf
- RNUG - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:16 am:
== So what’s next - a temporary 3-6 month same rate as last year funding for each school district so schools can open? ==
The votes probably aren’t there. What happens now is no funding for schools.
If the Democrats really want to implement SB-1, then they sit on the override vote until they have enough GOP votes to override.
Otherwise, vote on it, let it fail, and take years to reach agreement on a new bill.
If it does get the votes to override, assume this was all a game by Rauner to get the bill passed without his agreement while getting credit for standing up to the “Chicago Machine”?
Are we going to see this go to the courts, either as an improper AV (might succeed) or a class action suit by school parents to force funding (unlikely, given previous school funding cases / rulings)?
- Markus - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:17 am:
==As well, there’s no restriction in the IL Constitution on the limit of the governor’s power to make “specific recommendations.” House & Senate may have self-imposed limits on AVs in their Rules, but that wouldn’t be a limit on the power of the Executive Branch.==
Maybe not yet, but I’d bet the ISC would quickly sort this out if asked. This may be the perfect test case at the perfect time.
- Lester Holt's Mustache - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:19 am:
Lol @StatehouseChick. Apparently most of us here( along with multiple editorial boards, dem Gov candidates, house and senate Dems) simply do not “understand” Bruce’s AV changes. If only we were all smart enough to understand, we’d surely all support this move by the Governor.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:19 am:
==Maybe not yet, but I’d bet the ISC would quickly sort this out if asked. This may be the perfect test case at the perfect time.==
I really doubt the ISC is gonna step in and start monkeying around with the GA’s internal mechanics.
- Juice - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:20 am:
Markus, the courts have ruled on AV’s in a number of cases and haven’t put too much restriction on his authority, but have left quite a bit a uncertainty. They have made it quite clear that the power goes beyond making technical changes.
But the only way that someone could sue over the AV is if the GA accepts his changes, which isn’t going to happen.
- Cook street - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:20 am:
Illinois Supreme court had said a bill is passed when the last action necessary to send a bill to the Governor has occurred.
- A Jack - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:22 am:
I don’t think that a change to the pension code would fall within “specific” recommendations. That is outside of the bill and probably makes the AV fail.
I mean how can the GA “accept” a recommendation to change the pension code when there would have to be a bill to make that change and that bill might pass or fail. It just isn’t a logical recommendation inside the context of an AV.
- Fixer - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:28 am:
3/5ths or simple majority, I don’t necessarily think it matters at this point. I don’t see the AV changes being accepted by either ratio.
- Echo The Bunnyman - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:31 am:
I am surprised at the shot the Illinois Federation of Teachers took at Rauner. There were enough voices against it already. Seems like a gratuitous shot that puts teachers against the governor. Not sure they needed that..
- Hamlet's Ghost - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:34 am:
It appears a simple majority can accept the AV changes however those changes wouldn’t take effect before June 1, 2018 without a 3/5ths vote.
- cdog - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:34 am:
Hold two votes.
Overide, and if that fails,
a vote to Agree to the AV parameters.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:35 am:
===I am surprised at the shot the Illinois Federation of Teachers took at Rauner. There were enough voices against it already. Seems like a gratuitous shot that puts teachers against the governor. Not sure they needed that===
Rauner is wholly against unionized teachers.
It’s more than fair game.
- Little Leroy - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:36 am:
Spicey and The Mooch are available for work and could help Captain Carhartt understand that pesky 3/5ths majority thing–I am quite certain.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:37 am:
==Seems like a gratuitous shot that puts teachers against the governor.==
IFT has been dead set against this guy since 2014.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:38 am:
Cook street, you have a cite?
- The Real Just Me - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:42 am:
Rauner hit the IL constitutional law jackpot with one AV. When is a bill passed? What is the scope of an amendatory veto? How many votes does it take to accept an amendatory veto? I hope he had Completed Staff Work on all of this.
- Ducky LaMoore - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:43 am:
I’ve consistently thought that Rauner’s actions as governor were completely thought through and the destruction and confusion sewn by his actions were the desired outcome. Turns out I’m wrong. He’s just an incompetent. What people thought about Pat Quinn, is actually true of Bruce Rauner.
- Now What? - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:50 am:
Chicago Teacher Union is IFT. Bruce is not on the Christmas list.
- Ginhouse Tommy - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 11:54 am:
Looking way ahead, as unprepared a Bruce is, I hope he doesn’t try to debate his opponent. It would be laughable. He’s clueless but we already knew that.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 12:04 pm:
Seems Edgar was right about the new brain trust.
Who knew that life outside dorm-room debate club was so complicated?
The skills necessary to sweet talk reactionary sugar daddies out of their money don’t necessarily translate to all vocations.
- Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 12:34 pm:
(Senate Rule 7-15)
Grand Ave et al …
7-15. Reconsideration.
(a) … The motion to reconsider may be laid on the table without affecting the vote to which it referred.
That means SB 1 passed on May 31.
- Undiscovered country - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 12:35 pm:
@nick name
The motion hold the bill in the chamber, just as if it wasn’t passed at all for purposes of the calendar. the 7/21 date is legally correct.
- Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 12:54 pm:
I can’t get over the 3/5 screw up. Just can’t. Forget the staff. How can you be around IL government (which you kind of are when you’re governor) and not know THE most basic things. I mean seriously. A rookie lobbyist would know this but not the gov and his genius braintrust of extremist amateurs. Paging RadicalCandorIL!
- PragmaticR - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 1:09 pm:
Based on the voting histories in both chambers, there are only two plausible scenarios following the AV on SB1. First, the Governor’s AV is overridden by both chambers and the Governor solidifies his record of obstructionism without purpose. 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 House Republicans will receive most of the blame for the resulting chaos that affects downstate districts first. The Governor is going to damage some House Republicans in an attempt to reallocate less than 5% of a $6.8 billion education package. This is not the right battle for fiscal conservatives.
Governor, AV is “a strange game. The only wining move is not to play.” I guess it is too late for that bit of advice.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 1:17 pm:
Good work on defending the “simple majority” line, everyone. Sure you feel really great that the Governor supported you in this endeavor.
- Rod - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 2:49 pm:
Rick Pearson in the Tribune called the Governor’s amendatory veto “complicated” and I agree. It goes beyond just addressing the CPS block grant funding issue, the payment to the Chicago pension fund for normal costs, and deductions for CPS adequacy target. It addresses issues relating to how the PTELL (property tax limitation law) and TIF’s are accounted for in terms of a school district’s wealth measurement. It even changes the rather complex regionalization factor in the bill. The Governor also proposes a change to the hold harmless provision of the bill which was a selling point for more wealthy school districts. I will be interested to read the Illinois Association of School Boards Association’s analysis of the impact of these proposed changes.
Some thought was given to these proposed changes by people around the Governor and they will have to be digested. Nothing the Governor has said during his complaints about CPS being bailed out prepared me for the larger scope of these proposed changes. In my opinion Mayor Emanuel’s fuzzy math comments and JB Pritzker’s comments are exclusively focused on CPS and cash issues. They are not exactly deeply thought out. This will take some time to digest.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 2:52 pm:
===This will take some time to digest.===
Not really…
President Cullerton, if you would, please…
===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.===
Pretty simple stuff.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 3:04 pm:
What’s exciting for me?
That’s easy.
Not one thing covered, budgetarily, hasn’t been vetoed by Rauner, one way or another.
It’s complete.
Pick your subject, “Rauner vetoed it”
School funding? “Rauner vetoed it”.
Ah, now… “But, but, but, it’s an AV. The GA can… ”
Nope. Sorry.
Just like the overrides, Rauner had the choice of a clean signature… But “a veto” was the Rauner choice.
Social services? - Rauner vetoed that.
Higher Ed? - Rauner vetoed that.
…
K-12 school funding? … You guessed it, “Rauner vetoed that”
So, to recap, and please, get your pens, pencils, magic markers, any writing utensil you’d like to learn…
…
“Rauner vetoed that”
That’s who Bruce Rauner is. Rauner has nothing to point to that he helped fund, support, fight for, build upon… nope…
“Rauner vetoed that”
Until next June.
- Rod - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 3:23 pm:
Willy I am glad you are such a quick study, because honestly I am not. Which also does not in the least mean I don’t want to see CPS get additional State funding especially since its my property taxes impacted as a City resident when CPS comes calling.
The issues that go beyond CPS I think are cost containment issues. As we know the additional costs of SB 1 to the State are significant and at current revenue levels may not be met, one of the aspects of the veto deal with the very real possibility ISBE does not have the money to meet adequate funding based on the EBM staffing levels and how money would flow to tier 1 schools in that situation at the expense of tier 2 schools that are in only marginally better shape. This is not simple stuff Willy if you read the bill and situate the amendments in it. I agree with Rick Pearson this is complicated.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 3:28 pm:
===Willy I am glad you are such a quick study…===
I’m not. I can read a few paragraphs from President Cullerton and understand a warning of the governing at play.
===This is not simple stuff Willy if you read the bill and situate the amendments in it.===
Rauner has had, according to him, 2 months to understand. He’s a “money guy”… He’s even a former money guy who dealt in pensions…
Had Rauner worked and cobbled his own bill and majorities, he’d have his own bill to sign.
Rauner isn’t a victim to “complexity”.
Rauner is a victim to his vetoes.
- Rod - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 3:42 pm:
Willy every dollar more ISBE gives to CPS is likely money in my pocket down the road in terms of containing property tax increases to keep CPS afloat. But I don’t recall some of the issues in the veto message really being much discussed by either Ms. Purvis or the Governor.
I know you want to reduce this Willy to the political skinny of it all, and that is fine. But I think there may potentially be some school districts negatively impacted by the changes to the hold harmless provision that are in Republican areas. I would like to better understand all of that and I suspect some school district superintendents will want to better understand that too.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 4:50 pm:
===…every dollar more ISBE gives to CPS is likely money in my pocket down the road in terms of containing property tax increases to keep CPS afloat. But I don’t recall some of the issues in the veto message really being much discussed by either Ms. Purvis or the Governor===
You should be glad. It appears Rauner can’t count to 71 and 36 so, right now, the chances any school gets any sort of funding isn’t too great. Cheer. As a “taxpayer” you should be pleased.
===But I think there may potentially be some school districts negatively impacted by the changes to the hold harmless provision that are in Republican areas. I would like to better understand all of that and I suspect some school district superintendents will want to better understand that too===
Here is what you and these “hand wringing superintendents” need to come to grips with…
The number(s) that matter now are “71″ and “36″
The AV kinda threw out all that “worry”
It’s down to Rauner, “he vetoed that”… and 71 and 36 possibly getting acceptance of the AV
That’s it. President Cullerton laid it out as crisp as possible.
An AV negates the hand wringing. It’s now 71 and 36.