* A bit of a recap from yesterday…

Illinois Democrats are proposing $700 million to partially finance various human service programs that have gone without state funding since last summer because there’s no budget.

A House committee on Wednesday unanimously advanced the bill to the full chamber. The measure would use $450 million from a fund dedicated to human services and $250 million from other special funds. […]

The money would go to programs including homelessness prevention, rental assistance, addiction treatment, and veterans’ rehabilitation.

The proposal would fund 46 percent of what human service programs expected to receive had the state budget taken effect July 1.

* Tribune…

Officials with Rauner’s office threw cold water on the social services plan, saying they feared the legislation is a signal that Democrats will pull out of behind-the-scenes negotiations aimed at striking a comprehensive deal, which has thus far remained elusive.

Further, if lawmakers continue to empty those funds, there will be less flexibility for Rauner down the road when the next budget emergency arises – such as the operation of prisons, where vendors are also waiting to be paid.

* That approp bill passed today. A senior administration official passed along this memo from the governor’s budget office which claims there are some bigtime problems with the bill…

Senate Bill 2038 has been put forward as a stop gap measure to fund some state programs currently not funded due to lack of appropriation authority.

The language contained in section 996 would prohibit some agencies from funding some of the very programs that this bill purports to fund. By prohibiting the use of funds for operational expenditures, some of the programs, which are operational in nature, would not be able to be funded. The prohibitive language is as follows:

“Section 996. No appropriation authority granted in this Act shall be used for personal services, state contribution for employee group insurance, contractual services, travel, commodities, equipment, permanent improvements, land, electronic data processing, operation of automotive equipment, or telecommunications services, as those terms are defined in Section 13 of the State Finance Act.”

We believe this provision clearly prohibits spending from operational line items which would be needed to implement some of the spending priorities outlined in this bill.

In fact, the appropriations language that authorizes funding for these programs references that the funding can be used for “administrative expenses” over 30 times in the bill, then prohibits the use of administrative expenses to carry out the programs in Section 996. Section 996 language is extraordinarily uncommon and seems to run counter to the purpose of the bill.

A few examples:
Dept on Aging

• Senior Help Line is a call center. Aging could not pay the related phone line charges and communication equipment used to support the call center.

Military Affairs

• Lincoln’s Challenge could not pay for food, educational/instructional materials and supplies to support the program.

Healthcare and Family Services

• Information Technology Infrastructure is an intergovernmental agreement with Michigan to develop new eligibility system. These expenditures would fall under contractual services and electronic data processing, which would be prohibited by Article 996.

Dept of Human Services

• Cornerstone is the main reporting and billing system for programs such as Early Intervention. A third party administers this system and DHS would not be able to pay the vendors to maintain the system or upgrade the computer software.

Dept of Public Health

• HIV/AIDS ADAP program could not purchase medical supplies, pay for lab testing or pay insurance premiums for clients.

Oy.

 

*** UPDATE ***  Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), who chairs the Human Services Appropriations Committee, just called to say that the language was “intentional.” It wasn’t an error. Harris explained it was done this way to prevent the administration from transfering the money around for administrative costs.

But GOMB makes a good point that there could very well be some unintended consequences, so we’ll see what happens now that it’s in the Senate.