* This is true unless or until somebody sues, and nobody can really predict what the judiciary will do…
Illinois State Comptroller Susana Mendoza wants to clear something up: state lawmakers will not be receiving pay raises.
“Some state legislators seem to think they’ll be getting a pay raise this year. The answer is no, they won’t,” Mendoza says in a new video released by her office.
“So when you hear false rumors or assumptions that Comptroller Mendoza will have to pay legislators more this year, you tell them you heard it straight from the person whose job it is to cut the checks in Illinois: Legislator raises this year will be zero,” she says in the video’s conclusion.
The video message was prompted by ongoing confusion and misinformation among lawmakers and the public over whether or not lawmakers gave themselves a pay raise, or a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), in the Fiscal Year 2021 budget they approved Memorial Day weekend.
Although these raises are included in the budget by law every year, this year lawmakers voted to dedicate zero dollars to raises – which means they will not receive raises, Mendoza said.
“…the General Assembly voted to make the COLA zero, and I’m glad because it’s the right thing to do, especially amid the COVID-19 crisis that has really hit our state budget hard,” Mendoza says.
The video is here.
The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that cost of living adjustments are an integral part of compensation. The state constitution does not allow any change to compensation during a legislator’s term of office, up or down.
- Candy Dogood - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 4:05 pm:
This is a stupid and childish dispute.
Courts have repeatedly found that appropriating zero dollars to avoid paying something that is required by statute is stupid and childish.
Just appropriate the COLA, explain that it’s a COLA and it’s required by law and the Constitution prevents the law from being changed.
Lets not try to establish a precedent someone will use the next time the State just decides to not pay people the money they’re owed by law.
- Steve - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 4:09 pm:
-Lets not try to establish a precedent someone will use the next time the State just decides to not pay people the money they’re owed by law.-
State of Illinois vendors hear you.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 4:18 pm:
I’d probably highlight more the idea that a member of the comptroller’s crew had to pay for PPE in a parking lot, in order to save lives…
The marker is down. Ok, it’s on the record.
Can we now focus on governing and the need for the state to also function during a pandemic so there’s no more meeting in parking lots with live checks?
- AD - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 4:20 pm:
Someone on the Comptroller’s team is giving her bad advice on this. Not only is she wrong, but she’s doubling down on it with a video. After the leaked mayoral video prior to the Comptroller’s election and now this, it’s time for her team to take the camera away.
- Chatham Resident - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 4:42 pm:
==-Lets not try to establish a precedent someone will use the next time the State just decides to not pay people the money they’re owed by law.-
State of Illinois vendors hear you.==
Or unionized state employees.
- Norseman - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 4:52 pm:
Sorry, but the GOP is right on this one IMHO. You can’t change substantive law by an appropriations bill. Yes, they’ve removed the funding, but the obligation is still there if a legislator wants to push it.
- AD - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 5:24 pm:
=== Yes, they’ve removed the funding, but the obligation is still there if a legislator wants to push it.===
Bingo. Does she remind other people of Pat Quinn or just me?
- The Most Anonymous - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 5:34 pm:
This is classic Comptroller Mendoza focusing on something trivial and petty instead of big issues that matter to her office and to the state.
- Yiddishcowboy - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 5:41 pm:
I get so sick of this, whether it’s coming from a D or R. If the law (or a contract) creates an obligation to pay someone something, pay them already. Period. The courts have already weighed in on this matter. Enough of this nonsense because it plays well with the voters.
- Chatham Resident - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 5:41 pm:
==Bingo. Does she remind other people of Pat Quinn or just me?==
I wonder if the whole GA pay raise flap is a precursor to an argument that due to the pandemic, there should be no state employee pay raises or step increases during the upcoming fiscal year.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 5:47 pm:
===You can’t change substantive law by an appropriations bill. Yes, they’ve removed the funding, but the obligation is still there if a legislator wants to push it.===
Thanks, - Norseman - for this.
=== The state constitution does not allow any change to compensation during a legislator’s term of office, up or down.===
Sometimes… it’s best to put a marker down, then do your job anyway.
- Flummoxed - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 6:55 pm:
Legislators seeking political advantage have been spewing the falsehood that “Democrats snuck a secret raise into the budget.” We all know that’s false. The woman in the position to know what will be in the checks just set the record straight and put the lie to rest. Instead of thanking her, some commenters are jumping all over HER because they don’t like the way LEGISLATORS denied themselves a raise. Wow. Thank you, Comptroller Mendoza.
- Druid Eye - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 7:15 pm:
Nothing new here with Mendoza….if there was an earthquake in Panama…..she would put out a Press Release.
- Norseman - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 7:31 pm:
=== “Democrats snuck a secret raise into the budget.” ===
One of the most intellectually invigorating thing I’ve done is leaving a party and not joining another. I don’t have to make strained and questionable arguments to defend my tribe.
The GOP may be guilty of embellishing (See Rich’s many admonitions that folks don’t do nuance), but their not wrong about the Dems allowing the raises take effect. The raises take effect unless a vote is taken to stop them. That’s current law. The Dems say their not including funding in the budget means there are no raises. I disagree in part. The state is still obligated to pay the raises, but there is no money to pay them this year. That money could be appropriated next year or delayed until a legislator sues and the court requires payment.
- AD - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 7:42 pm:
=== The woman in the position to know what will be in the checks just set the record straight and put the lie to rest.===
Give me a break. I don’t think anyone is questioning what will be in the first checks on July 1, but we do know the State will incur an unpaid liability (whether it’s on the books or not) that will need to be paid due to court order when one of the hundreds of legislators decides they want that money and files something in court. There will be at least one legislator that needs the money or wants to make a point and gets it paid.
This is like saying that the State didn’t have to pay employee pensions because they shorted the systems all those years. Just because an appropriation isn’t there, doesn’t mean a liability isn’t accruing.
- Leigh John-Ella - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 7:55 pm:
I look forward to Jason Plummer suing to get his COLA so he can show the world he was right.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 7:58 pm:
===…Jason Plummer suing to get his COLA…”
I bet he demands a cherry cola.
- Nagidam - Wednesday, May 27, 20 @ 9:39 pm:
I saw a social media post from Rep. Stuart where she took ownership for the raise. Basically said if she vote against the budget she would vote against all the great things that will help her community. Whether you believe the budget is a fantasy or not. Stuart said it the way it is and didn’t lie.
- Chatham Resident - Thursday, May 28, 20 @ 8:07 am:
==Bingo. Does she remind other people of Pat Quinn or just me?==
There is at least one commonality I know of between Quinn and Mendoza: Both had/have Abdon Pallasch as spokesman.
- 17% Solution - Thursday, May 28, 20 @ 8:20 am:
==but we do know the State will incur an unpaid liability that will need to be paid due to court order when one of the hundreds of legislators decides they want that money and files something in court.==
And if none of them do this then what?
- Just Another Anon - Thursday, May 28, 20 @ 8:49 am:
The caselaw on this is clear, so I guess I disagree with Rich that we don’t know what the IL Supreme Court will do. I suspect that they will follow precedent and the IL Constitution, hard to see them doing otherwise. Its a raise caused by omission, not by addition. Mendoza is wrong on the law and is falling over herself to provide cover for the very legislators who did, by omission, vote to increase their pay. Not sure if she has a law degree or not, but someone should make sure that whoever signed off on the legal of this didn’t get theirs from a crackerjack box. This is a Lionel Hutz level mistake.