* Finke…
During a news conference before the vote, Rauner said he’s open to a negotiated settlement.
“If (lawmakers) won’t accept the changes, then let’s get a compromise quickly,” Rauner said. “I’m open to compromise on any issue.”
Some Senate Republicans also said a negotiated settlement could be reached, but said Democrats have to go further in reaching a compromise. However, Sen. Kimberly Lightford, D-Maywood, one of the negotiators on a possible school funding compromise, said it is Republicans who were preventing a compromise.
“Every meeting we’ve had, you’ve brought a new initiative to the table,” Lightford said. “You keep asking for things and not wanting to negotiate on anything else.”
* So, where is Beth Purvis these days? She led the school funding reform negotiations one behalf of Gov. Rauner for more than two years, but hasn’t been heard from since he issued his amendatory veto, which undid much of her work. Hmm. Maybe I just answered my own question…
Before the vote, Rauner also said he hoped lawmakers could achieve compromise. In a 30-minute press conference, he repeated his claim that Senate Bill 1 is a “Chicago bailout” cooked up by Democrats to favor Chicago Public Schools at the expense of downstate districts.
One theme he never mentioned was the work of his own bipartisan, bicameral school funding reform commission, which met for close to 100 hours over a period of six months in an effort to find agreement on school funding. That commission, led by Rauner’s education czar, Beth Purvis, didn’t envision some of the more radical changes the governor made to SB1, such as calculating the value of property controlled by TIF districts or PTELL caps as though the TIF or PTELL designation didn’t exist. More than 500 school districts would see their property resources rise in value, thus diminishing their share of state aid, if Rauner’s amendatory veto survives.
* Back to the “talks”…
“I am here to find solutions, compromises that work that are fair and balanced,” Rauner said. “Everything could be on the table but we don’t have the luxury of waiting.”
* But…
“I still, again, think that is within reach. I think there’s a clear path on how to do that, as long as folks stay disciplined and they keep their eye on the ball, I think that can get done,” [Sen. Andy Manar] said. “If it cannot get done, the House should override the veto, just like the Senate did today.”
But State Senator Kimberly Lightford, a Democrat from Maywood, says negotiations have been derailed by Republicans bringing in new requests that aren’t mentioned in Senate Bill 1 (the school funding plan) or Rauner’s veto — requests like tax credit scholarships for private schools, mandate relief, and “management rights,” which Manar rephrased as “the diminishment of collective bargaining rights for teachers.” Lightford said Republicans presented those demands and didn’t take questions about them.
“If you guys really want to get something done, we could! We could,” Lightford said. “You give, we give. You take, we take. You give again, we give again. That’s how it goes in negotiations.”
* Tribune…
The House now has 15 days to try to overturn the governor’s veto. The House is scheduled to be in session Wednesday and will hold a hearing on education funding. It’s unclear if they will take up the veto then, or wait to let more pressure build. Neither lawmakers nor the governor has shown much of an appetite the previous two years to play political chicken over school funding for too long, given the potential for a huge backlash from parents.
An override will take 71 votes, but there are just 67 House Democrats, meaning some Republicans would have to buck their governor. If the override fails, or is not called for a vote in the House, lawmakers would be left to negotiate a new plan as schools wait for funding.
* Sun-Times…
The Illinois House has 15 days to act on an override, but the Senate on Sunday also passed a backup bill should the House fail. That, however, would restart the clock on solving the school funding mess.
That “backup bill” was explained to subscribers this morning. It’s identical to the bill Rauner vetoed.
- wordslinger - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:05 am:
“If (lawmakers) won’t accept the changes….”
Not one Senate Republican filed a motion to accept the changes. Not one wanted to be on record in favor of them.
- Nick Name - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:07 am:
Of course he isn’t sincere. Just ask AFSCME. Anyway, as RNUG said in a comment yesterday, the time to negotiate and compromise on a bill is before it passes, not after. Either Gov. Gaslight(after two and a half years) still does not understand the process, or he does and is being deliberately disingenuous.
- Michael Westen - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:08 am:
Your question answers itself. The bill he vetoed, according to his Administration, gave him 90% of what he wanted.
- Blue Bayou - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:10 am:
Rauner is angry and embarrassed by the budget override and is going to the mattresses on school funding.
Rich white men don’t like to be held accountable.
Rauner and Trump have the same MO.
- Gruntled University Employee - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:11 am:
This smells a lot like the “we just need a little more time” that we kept hearing right up to the budget override.
- walker - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:12 am:
Rauner is willing to negotiate forever, as long as he can shift blame.
- Anon221 - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:12 am:
I agree with Senator Lightford. At some point “one more thing” is not negotiating anymore. At some point you have to do your job and not buy campaign time for Rauner. If the override fails in the House, and the backup bill becomes the new bargaining point, it cannot be drug out for months, which is the path I see Rauner’s Deputies doing (Barickman and Durkin, especially). If the other House Republicans believe this is the best course of action, they really might want to ask their constituents if they are OK with schools possibly shutting down while they work on “one more thing”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biW9BbWJtQU
- RNUG - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:13 am:
It takes the same number of votes to override as it does to pass a new bill with or without changes. Rauner, after his veto, is trying to get a “do over”.
(The following I posted last night but it is just as applicable here.)
You need to understand process, something the Rauner think tanks haven’t been good at. Timing is everything in politics.
Trying to compromise after a bill is passed is too late. The time to try to get something is before the bill is passed; that is when an extra vote can have value.
And coming in after a veto is also too late to affect the vetoed bill. That late in the game you can’t amend it; you have vote it up or down as is. The best you can do is get a future promise for something else. Trying to achieve compromise after the fact shows a total misunderstanding of the process.
The only way to leverage a vote at that time is if both the override and/or the approval fails. Then, and only then, with a new bill can you try to get a compromise. So we are back to the same point, you work the compromise before the initial bill reaches final passage.
It all comes back to lack of institutional knowledge on the part of Rauner’s teams. To win, especially when you are the minority in votes, you have to play by the rules that exist and work within the process.
It can be done … but, as a minority, you have accept less than 100% of what you want. A smart strategist would take the salimi slice approach: take what you can get this time, and come back for most or all of the rest next time.
That’s where Rauner and his team went wrong. He was used to dealing with distressed businesses where he could change the terms at the last second and still get them accepted because they were in such distress they needed his money.
That model doesn’t translate to government. It’s not Rauner’s money. And he is dealing with two co-equal branches: legislative and judicial. He hasn’t come to terms with the basic principal that Governors propose and the Legislature disposes.
Bottom line: it’s all about process. Madigan (and Cullerton), as majority leader, wrote the legislative rules and understand the process. Based on the actions and evidence to date, Rauner doesn’t understand the process.
Or if Rauner does understand the process, then he is deliberately derailing it … with an apparent goal of just destroying as much government as he can.
- SAP - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:14 am:
They say that the key to politics is sincerity. If you can fake sincerity, you’ve got it made.
I don’t think the Governor can fake sincerity any more.
- Eagle Eye - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:16 am:
In all seriousness, where is Beth Purvis? She’s a capable ed leader. Has she been silenced in light of the AV?
- Gruntled University Employee - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:23 am:
To Willy’s post, ” The best you can do is get a future promise for something else.” I agree 100%, unfortunately that well was poisoned 2-1/2 years ago.
===Or if Rauner does understand the process, then he is deliberately derailing it … with an apparent goal of just destroying as much government as he can. ===
I want to believe that this is not the case, but I’m a Glass Half Full kinda guy.
With respect as always,
GUE
- illini - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:23 am:
Thank you, RNUG.
Some people obviously understand process, timing and governing far better than others. And our school children are potentially going to pay the price for this ignorance.
- Generation X - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:25 am:
-Rich white men don’t like to be held accountable.-
Seriously? This is just ridiculous.
- Gruntled University Employee - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:25 am:
RNUG’s post not Willy’s. That was embarrassing. I knew I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:31 am:
You can’t bring a new proposal to a negotiation? Is a Bill Maher New Rule?
- Birdseed - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:33 am:
=== - Blue Bayou - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:10 am:
Rich white men don’t like to be held accountable. ===
Wow. This should not be tolerated here.
- Anonymous - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:37 am:
At this point only a damn fool would believe anything this guy says
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:38 am:
- Gruntled University Employee -
The work done by - RNUG -, I’d lone to take credit for it, he’s really good. Credit where credit is due.
===You can’t bring a new proposal to a negotiation?===
What - Louis G Atsaves -, 90% of what Rauner wanted isn’t good enough… or… lol
- Anonymous - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:41 am:
With such attitudes, no wonder you are blue, Blue Bayou
- blue dog dem - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:44 am:
Solutions. Are lack of therein. I am wondering what SB1 did. Other than the usual. Dumping more money into a system that has caused tremendously high property taxes. More income taxes on the WPAMC . More sin taxes. Dreams of more service taxes. Anybody out there really believe local taxes will go dowN? Anybody out there believe the pension mess both in Chicago and the state regarding teachers is resolved? Finally, does anyone out there believe income taxes won’t be raised again in the very near future?
- Anon221 - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:46 am:
Louis G. Atsaves -”You can’t bring a new proposal to a negotiation?”
Sure you can, but you don’t bring a ball bat to a pool room and expect to get in a game.
- Dance Band on the Titanic - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:46 am:
Correct me if I am mistaken but doesn’t the 15 day timer start when the House reads the AV into the record on Wednesday?
- Flynn's mom - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:50 am:
He’s “open to compromise”?? Really? He had 90% and vetoed the bill? What is compromise to this guy, 99.9%
- Honeybear - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:52 am:
Mistrust is the price of perfidy. Of course we cannot trust that he is sincere.
It seems to me that he is only trying to force a do over by destroying what took years to negotiate.
And doing that with the minority party.
Usurpation of democratic process
- RNUG - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:54 am:
== You can’t bring a new proposal to a negotiation? ==
Not when the choice is to approve or override an AV.
If you get to the point of runner ng a new bill, then you can.
- @MisterJayEm - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:56 am:
Of course it’s ridiculous — I mean, who could possibly think of even a single rich white dude who doesn’t love to be held accountable for their actions?
Ridiculous!!1!
To the post: 90% is a win. But Rauner was too vain to take that win.
And he was too vain to learn the procedural maneuvers (explained above by RNUG) that could have, maybe, given him a win of more than 90%.
And now he believes that he can somehow recover a win, merely by exerting his mighty ego.
This guy is something else.
– MrJM
- Mans Laughter - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:56 am:
The reality of Beth Purvis’s role is that she is at odds with the new guard in the Governor’s office and potentially has sentiments that are against the interests of Rauner given that it is clear she likes 90% of SB1. Purvis, a former Chicago International Charter School CEO has a singular focus and that is charter funding.
Perhaps Rich Miller should ask “where are charter schools in all of this?”
Mysteriously quiet.
- Mr B. - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 11:12 am:
This is a perfect issue to make a compromise. We citizens are sick of standoffs. School is starting soon and I just bulked up on the kid’s school supplies. As that Chicago rapper with the number “3″ on his hat said, take the kids off the table.
- Keyser Soze - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 11:52 am:
I haven’t sensed a great deal of sincerity on either side of the aisle.
- The Real Just Me - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 12:12 pm:
What’s the point in negotiating or even putting new proposals forward now? Don’t we already know what Governor Rauner’s last, best and final offer in these negotiations is? It has to be the AV, right? You mean he was not being sincere when he AV’d SB1 and put school funding in jeopardy? He would have agreed to something less than the AV?
- Michelle Flaherty - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 12:26 pm:
“Rauner talks SB1 negotiations, but is he sincere?”
No.
- Disgusted Downstate - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 12:49 pm:
It isn’t often Brent Clark uses strong language about legislation, but IASA called out the AV in no uncertain terms in yesterday’s Capitol Watch:
“The Amendatory Veto (AV) cut the heart, intention and protections out of SB 1 and has offered to buy us cheaply. That is a tactic (venture capitalism) used in the corporate world to buy businesses that are hurting and are willing to sell at a cheap price.
The AV is designed to either lure every district into blindly leaping to support the AV because of the promise of more money in the first year while assuming we wouldn’t have the sense or capability to look beyond year 1 or put us into such a protracted duration of no state support that we’ll accept nearly anything including a return to the old formula.”
It sounds like IASA doesn’t think much of Rauner’s idea of negotiations. Nor should they.
- Markus - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 12:56 pm:
Has anyone seen/reviewed the data source for the Illinois House Dems “Losing Districts” graphic? If it holds up to scrutiny it would be pretty powerful. Nothing on the website or a link in the twitter post to support it.
- Langhorne - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 1:05 pm:
Negotiations are based on trust. The higher the the stakes, the greater the needed level of trust.
The time for new, expensive initiatives was months ago.
The “reform” shtick has run its course. The repubs have nothing to run on .
- PragmaticR - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 1:07 pm:
== I haven’t sensed a great deal of sincerity on either side of the aisle. ==
The Democrats actions are certainly consistent with the stated desire for greater funding in districts with a high percentage of poor students, including CPS. Based on the latest calculations for the Governor’s AV, CPS receives a very small fraction of the additional $350 million in the state budget for education funding in spite of educating 20% of the students in the state. The comparison of the two funding distributions clearly indicates which side of the aisle is more sincere in its attempt to improve K-12 education for poor students across the state.
In addition, several reports indicate that Republicans were also surprised by the substantial changes via TIF and PTELL clauses that are part of the Governor’s AV as well as the conversion to a per pupil hold harmless provision after a few years. These items and the recent discussion of $100 million in tax credits for donations to private school scholarships appear to be several steps away from a sincere effort to compromise.
- Langhorne - Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 1:13 pm:
Hey, Diana, Bruce,
How’s the messagin’ going?
How’s the strategy goin’?
Jimmy? Billy? Can you see the future from here?