* If you have a bit of money in your pocket and you stupidly commit a petty crime, it’s relatively easy to bail yourself out of jail. But if people without any financial means stupidly commit the very same petty crime, they can’t bail themselves out of jail and they rot behind bars for months. And while they’re sitting there, they learn from hardened types about how to be a real criminal.
Our justice system is just way out of whack. Sheriff Tom Dart is sick of it…
At a Tuesday news conference at the county jail, Dart told reporters the system is “not set up to care” about detainees in jail on minor offenses, who sometimes wait for months before for their cases are concluded.
One man spent 114 days in jail, which the sheriff’s office runs, allegedly for stealing packs of Snickers bars—at a cost to taxpayers of more than $16,000, according to Dart, who used the case as one example of “the outrageous amounts of money we spend incarcerating the wrong people.” […]
Beginning next week and continuing weekly, county officials will identify five to ten cases “where we feel people [should] not be there,” Dart said, and meet with public defenders and county prosecutors to brainstorm ways to fast-track those cases. […]
“We need to save our venom, our resources, for violent people,” he said.
The sheriff said Cook County Jail isn’t just coping with housing the mentally ill, “we also lock up low-level offenders where you cannot find a reason for them to be here.”
“Are we protecting society? No. Are we rehabilitating them? No,” he added.
One woman at the jail has been incarcerated since last summer, awaiting trial for stealing about $4 worth of plums and candy. She was pregnant at the time, and Dart said her incarceration has cost the county $20,000. […]
Dart also wants a new state law requiring cases of retail theft and trespassing to be adjudicated quickly, or suspects should be freed on recognizance bonds or home monitoring, pending the outcome of their case.
He also wants a “rocket docket” for minor drug offenses.
* Look, I’m not saying that everybody who commits a minor crime ought to walk free right away. But they actually locked up a pregnant woman for well over half a year for a $4 theft?
Are you freaking kidding me???
To his everlasting credit, Gov. Bruce Rauner has said he wants sentencing reforms. Let’s hope something substantial is accomplished on this front.
State Rep. Frank Mautino, D-Spring Valley, announced Monday he is receiving treatment for recently diagnosed esophageal cancer.
“During a routine physical in late January, my doctor found a mass. Following a biopsy in February, I was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. My family and I are thankful for the skilled physicians working with me. My prognosis is good, and I expect to make a full recovery.
“I am currently receiving chemotherapy treatment, which will be followed by several weeks of chemotherapy and radiation treatment and surgery.
“While my activity in the district may be limited while I receive treatment, I have adjusted my treatment schedule so I can continue representing local residents, both in my district and in the State Capitol.
“My family and I would like to thank everyone for their thoughts and prayers at this time.”
In a phone interview Monday, Mautino said the cancer was “caught early” and that doctors have told him it was 97 percent curable.
Not so long ago, Exelon…was extolling the merits of an open market for power as its profits rolled in. Now, with power prices plunging, Exelon has lost enthusiasm for the open markets it championed in the 1990s and wants the Legislature to devise a new formula that will protect its profits, quite likely driving up utility bills for homeowners and businesses.
If Exelon is hard up, they can show us. The company should open its books to show how its nuclear fleet is performing.
What’s good for Exelon doesn’t much matter if it’s bad for the rest of Illinois.
Good old Exelon. The company has come up with legislation to subsidize its nuclear reactors, get electric users throughout the state to pay for it and claim it’s in the interest of clean energy.
State lawmakers need to see this bill for the dirty trick it is and kill it.
* Keep in mind that a whole lot of mayors (including Chicago’s former mayor) opposed the income tax hike. And now that the hike has mostly expired, the mayors are screaming bloody murder because the governor has proposed cutting their revenue sharing money in half. Well, he’s gotta go somewhere, and you go where the money is…
Suburban mayors testified before an Illinois Senate hearing Monday that a proposed reduction to their share of state income taxes could mean drastic cuts to public services like police and fire protection, or an increase in local property taxes.
Gov. Bruce Rauner has proposed cutting half the money municipalities receive every year from income taxes as one part of a budget proposal aimed at addressing the state’s troubled finances. He’s argued many towns have healthy reserve funds that can be used to cover the loss of income tax revenues.
Municipalities across the state currently share in a pool of 8 percent of income taxes. Rauner’s proposal would set that at 4 percent starting July 1.
Mayors from across the suburbs filled a senate appropriations committee hearing room in downtown Chicago to express their opposition to Rauner’s plan.
The City of Quincy formally adopted a resolution at Monday night’s City Council meeting urging Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner and the General Assembly to fully fund the Local Government Distributive Fund. The fund provides the city some $4,000,000 annually, and the Republican governor wants to cut the fund by some 50%.
According to Quincy Mayor Kyle Moore, “those are funds that our citizens earn and then go back to their local government bodies to provide essential services like police, fire and infrastructure. The Governor is proposing reducing that in half, which is a $2,000,000 cut, or a 6% decrease in our overall budget, and that would be devastating for the city of Quincy.”
Compounding the problem for the city is the fact that the city’s fiscal year starts May 1st, and the General Assembly will likely not adopt a final state budget until a date close to July 1st. Moore says the city will not pass a temporary budget for 2-3 months, to wait and see what the state does. “We have to prepare for a worst-case scenario, and every indication out of Springfield is that cities and counties will take some hit in next year’s budget, so we have to prepare for a reduction in our revenue”.
* I could go on forever because there are tons of related stories online that were published just in the past three days. Bing/Google “Rauner” and “Mayor” to see them all.
It’s the opinion of quite a lot of people I know that this particular proposed cut will put huge pressure on lawmakers in both parties to increase state taxes. Mayors have a lot of sway over legislators, and quite a few legislators were local government officials in previous lives.
* But Lake County has come up with a few interesting ideas for getting itself out from under some state mandates. Now, not all of these ideas are great, but some are worth a look. From a press release…
As Governor Bruce Rauner forms a special task force to examine unfunded mandates imposed on local governments, Lake County Board Chairman Aaron Lawlor sent a list of more than a dozen specific items for the group to consider that would save Lake County taxpayers millions. The list is a result of a comprehensive analysis of the hundreds of state mandates imposed on county governments.
Governor Rauner issued an executive order in February creating the Local Government and Consolidation and Unfunded Mandate Task Force, which is chaired by Lt. Governor Evelyn Sanguinetti and includes representatives of units of local government, school districts, and State representatives.
Lake County’s list covers mandates that could be reconsidered, as well as opportunities for consolidation and other efficiencies. The immediate cost savings identified in the report add up to $2.1 million, and millions more in ongoing savings related to restructuring compensation packages and workers’ compensation reform. In addition, the State requires certain notices be published in the newspaper and requires local governments to store hard copies of records rather than electronic copies – requirements that are antiquated, inefficient, and costly. Also, recent election law changes now require voter registration in every polling place on Election Day, grace period registration, and early voting at a cost of $1 million to Lake County.
The County is required to retain various paper records, which have to be stored and managed (at a cost). For example, Accounts Payable paid invoices are scanned into our financial system prior to payment, but also are required to be kept in the paper form for seven years.
The County is required to place certain records on microfilm or microfiche. There are much more efficient technologies available today which are just as effective at indexing and organizing in a more economical fashion. Changing this mandate could save the County approximately $185,000 annually. […]
Revenues generated at the jail commissary are deposited into the Inmate Welfare Fund. This fund has a large, and growing, fund balance, but the State mandates that these funds can only be used for the benefit and welfare of inmates, and not on the basic costs of incarceration.
Currently, the County spends in excess of $2 million annually on the medical care of inmates and is unable to access inmate welfare funds to offset these costs. Allowing the use of inmate welfare funds for the cost of basic medical care would help defray the cost of inmate care and reduce the use of tax dollars.
Tuesday, Mar 10, 2015 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
Our names are Eric and Evilyn Ramirez. We were excited for the birth of our first child; instead it turned into a nightmare. Our daughter, Dahlia, needed surgery a month after she was born. A surgery we were told was routine.
However, something went terribly wrong when the surgeons made the first cut. A preventable operating room “flash fire” set Dahlia’s body on fire. It burned our baby over 37 percent of her body with 2nd and 3rd degree burns. Her face was burned, and she lost part of her nose, fingertips and thumbs. Dahlia was without oxygen for at least 15 minutes, which triggered a cardiac emergency that left her brain-damaged and resulted in Dahlia suffering from cerebral palsy today.
If it weren’t for the civil justice system, we would not have had the resources to pay for Dahlia’s everyday care, therapies, specialized education and future surgeries that she needs to overcome her injuries as best she can. It will allow us to give Dahlia all the things she will need to live as close to a normal life as possible.
The Illinois Trial Lawyers Association fights to ensure all citizens get equal footing in the courtroom. To learn more about Dahlia, click here.
“Change has to happen in Illinois in the next four months,” [Gov. Bruce Rauner] said [last Friday in Elmhurst].
He also said he plans to drive that directive with six floor bills to be drafted in the next three weeks.
Rauner expressed confidence that his legislation would get through the Illinois General Assembly, saying 600 bills go through the legislature every year.
“We can pass six,” he said, then repeating, “we can pass six.”
But Rauner didn’t say what those bills would be, and a spokesperson also declined to provide details.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think there’s some sort of quota system that says governors are allowed 1 percent of all bills passed by the General Assembly.
And if I were a cynic I’d write some wisecrack about how the governor knows all about that 1 percent number. But I’m not, so I’ll let that one pass.
Also, since there’s no quote attached I can’t be sure if the reporting is accurate, but there’s no such thing as a “floor bill.” Perhaps he meant or even said “floor amendments.”
* I talked about this story in the subscriber section today, so I’ll let the rest of the story be, except for one thing.
The governor, you’ll recall, told Republican Senators that he wanted their votes on ten bills. He told a Decatur audience this last month…
“We get six hundred bills in an average year. We can pass eight bills,” he said.
But now it’s 6.
* The Question: Anybody wanna guess the governor’s final passage count? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
“People are saying, ‘Oh Bruce, you’re just anti-union,’” Rauner told a crowd of about 200. “Let me be clear: I am not anti-union. I do believe you should be able to join a union or not join a union. You should have the freedom to choose.”
“An employee who is forced to pay unfair share dues is being forced to fund political activity with which they disagree. That is a clear violation of First Amendment rights –- and something that, as governor, I am duty-bound to correct.”
Yep. He’s all about worker rights and worker freedom.
“Illinois, we’re the heart of the Midwest, we’re the economic muscle of the Midwest, and we’re sitting here with closed-shop restrictions,” he says. “If DuPage County wants to have closed shop in their county, keep it—terrific, no problem. But why should DuPage force Effingham County to be closed shop? If Effingham wants to compete with Indiana for a new business, and be on the list where companies will look for employment flexibility, why shouldn’t they be able to choose to do that?”
It’ll come as no surprise to just about anyone that the “worker rights” argument is nowhere near to the core of what he wants to do here. This is all about driving down wages and benefits in both the public and private sectors. I mean, why would potential employers care if Illinois is “protecting” workers’ First Amendment rights if it doesn’t put money into their pockets?
Gov. Bruce Rauner contended Friday that public employee unions are behind the political decisions that drive how Illinois’ largest city is governed and said until that factor is eliminated, “Chicago is lost.” […]
“The Chicago machine is a government union machine at its core. … Until we deal with that, Chicago is lost,” Rauner said, contending union influence should be part of the mayoral race discussion.
Again, this all just states (and re-states) the obvious, but the governor’s crocodile tears for working people schtick is starting to wear on me. What he really means is working people make too much money and business owners don’t make enough.
* US Sen. Mark Kirk is basically freely admitting that he’ll extract as much 2016 campaign advantage out of his recovery from a massive stroke as he can. AP…
When U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk suffered a debilitating stroke in 2012, he faced a grueling recovery and serious questions about how he could continue his political career.
Now the Illinois Republican, who won the Senate seat Barack Obama vacated to run for president, is one of the Democrats’ top targets as they try to recapture control of the chamber. But far from downplaying his disability, which requires him to rely on a cane or wheelchair at times, Kirk believes it gives him a unique advantage.
Kirk says the setback has raised his public profile, noting that more people now stop to greet and encourage him. He believes it will help steel him against attacks by Democrats lining up to paint him as too extreme for a state that, before he took office, had only elected one GOP candidate to the Senate since 1968.
“Now I’m definitely a disabled American with a wheelchair,” Kirk said in an interview. “That makes me not quite the demonizable Republican candidate that you would think.”
I can see where he’s trying to go with this, but, wow, does that last sentence ever sound way too cynically calculated.
“I can hopefully be a powerful example for people who have gone through this,” Kirk said recently in an interview in his Senate office.
Yet any physical lapse by the senator, who is often escorted around the Capitol in a wheelchair by aides and uses a cane to walk, could also signal to skeptical voters that he’s not up to the rigors of a grueling job. […]
“A lot of my verbal skills kicked in one night, when I was at a fundraiser, over a glass of pinot grigio. So I’ve been insisting on pinot grigio everywhere,” he quipped.
Yet Kirk is frequently tired. He takes periodic naps on a couch in his office. His physical stamina is bound to be put to the test during a long, high-stakes campaign. […]
“I would say probably the chief limitation that I suffer from for my political future is fatigue,” Kirk said. “Most times people who suffer strokes want to sleep for about a year. In my case, you are always kind of a little bit tired.”
The office records of Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) show an anomaly that may have allowed the embattled congressman to skirt wage cap rules by paying a windfall bonus of $30,000 to his chief of staff. […]
For the first three quarters of 2014, Schock’s Chief of Staff Mark Roman made $30,000 a quarter, or $120,000 annually. Records for the fourth quarter of 2014, however, reported that his salary payment had doubled to $60,000.
December bonuses are not unusual on Capitol Hill. Bonuses, however, must comply with the salary caps defined in House rules. The Members’ Handbook says a staffer may not receive any more than the $168,411 annual cap, and also specifies the staffer may not receive more than 1/12th that amount - or $14,034 - in any one month.
That cap would allow Roman to receive only about $4,000 a month additional in bonus above his $10,000 monthly salary.
If the $30,000 additional payment came in December, his total compensation that month would be $26,000 above the limit. Even if the $30,000 additional payment was spread over three months, it would be too high by $18,000.
Schock managed to avoid the monthly salary cap by reporting that the $60,000 was salary Roman earned from March 1-Dec. 31, even though he had already reported Roman’s salary from March 1-Sept. 30. No other salary payment in Schock’s office showed similar backdating.
Since congressional office allowances do not roll over to the next year, the additional $30,000 paid to Roman otherwise would have been forfeited to the U.S. Treasury at the end of the year.
Oy.
* The highly partisan Blue Nation Review has more data…
* Anthony DeThomas was a paid intern who started on August 7, 2014, earning approximately $1,000 a month. Then he became a “temporary employee” and was paid $18,000 from October through December. The former intern’s paycheck exceeded most of the members of Schock’s staff – even accounting for the big bonuses and pay raises they collected. Oddly, DeThomas was also paid or reimbursed $50 and $100 for “Utilities.”
* Jonathon Link, Schock’s full time personal photographer, started September 1 and was paid $4,166 for that month, which translates to an annual salary of about $50,000. In the final three months of the year, he was paid $17,500, which translates to an annual salary of about $70,000. In addition to his congressional salary, Link’s photography studio was paid more than $29,000 during the final three months of the year for “Web Dev Hst, Email and Rltd Serv.” Schock’s office also paid “Web Dev Hst, Email and Rltd Serv” through Fireside21—a company that charges just a few hundred dollars per month and actually specializes in web development, hosting, email, and related services for Congressional offices. Was Link double-dipping? […]
* Matthew Chambers, a staff assistant, was paid $8,888 from July through September but received $13,000 from October through December.
* Genevieve Dejean, a constituent services representative, earned $7,516 from July through September, but received $10,500 from October through December.
* Michael Gilmore, a military/veteran specialist, was paid $9,999 from July to September and then $13,999 from October through December.Kelli Ripp, a legislative assistant, received $11,250 from July to September and $16,250 from October through December.
* Sarah Rogers, executive assistant, received $16,250 from July to September and $26,250 from October through December.
* Mark Roman, deputy chief of staff, was being paid approximately $10,000 a month for the first nine months of the year, but was paid $20,000 per month during the fourth quarter of 2014. The disbursement records are unclear; the fourth-quarter 2014 report lists $60,000 in salary for Roman, but then perhaps erroneously lists the time period as March 1 to December 31 instead of October 1 to December 31.
* Bryan Rudolph, district office manager, was paid $15,000 from July to September and $20,000 from October through December.
Schock’s payroll skyrocketed from $172,000 in the third quarter of 2014 to over $300,000 during the fourth.
Tuesday, Mar 10, 2015 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
Locally-owned credit unions return their earnings as a benefit to their members through services like free ATMs, better rates and lower fees. When credit unions exceed expectations, their members – including Illinois working-class families – share even more in those benefits.
Illinois credit unions gave back to their members in a big way during 2014. From CEFCU in Peoria, which delivered a record dividend more than three times the one it issued the previous year; to Gas & Electric CU in Moline; NuMark CU in suburban Chicagoland; and Catholic & Community CU and Scott CU in downstate Metro East – in the aggregate, nearly $43 million in bonus dividends alone.
This success is due in no small part to the continued loyalty of credit union member-owners – and can occur because credit unions are structured as not-for-profit, member-centric financial cooperatives.
Overall, Illinois’ Main Street credit unions annually return $205 million in direct financial benefits to the savings accounts of almost three million members – your local constituents – not to the pockets of a select few Wall Street investors. No matter how much each credit union may return individually, there is one theme the movement agrees upon collectively: It’s all about members!
Attorney General Lisa Madigan today filed a motion to intervene in Governor Bruce Rauner’s federal lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of “fair share” fees as allowed under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. Madigan issued the following statement outlining her role in this litigation:
“Last month, Governor Rauner issued an Executive Order seeking to stop the payment of ‘fair share’ fees used to support non-political union activities such as contract administration and collective bargaining. On the same day, he also sued over two dozen unions in federal court in anticipation of a legal challenge to his Executive Order in state court.
Last week, the unions filed suit in state court seeking to prohibit Governor Rauner from implementing his Executive Order and breaching their contracts and to restore the ‘fair share’ fee payments.
Today, I filed a motion to intervene in the federal lawsuit to defend the constitutionality of Illinois’ law. Along with the motion to intervene, I have submitted a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the Governor does not have the legal authority to sue to challenge the law in federal court.
As Attorney General, it is my job to represent the state and defend our laws when their constitutionality is challenged in court. Because the Governor’s case questions the validity of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, I moved to intervene to provide the court with arguments regarding the law’s constitutionality.”
The motion is here. The accompanying memorandum is here.
*** UPDATE *** Lance Trover…
“As expected, the Attorney General filed a motion in federal court to defend so-called ‘fair share’ union dues in state government, which is why the Governor pro-actively asked the Attorney General’s office to allow the Governor’s office to use pro bono outside counsel. The Attorney General’s actions will have no impact on the Governor’s efforts to protect taxpayers and state employees who don’t want to pay forced union dues.”
[Madigan’s] motion emphasizes the following points. First, the Governor may not use this suit as a preemptive strike against an anticipated state court law suit against him for violating state law in which he could assert federal law only as a defense to the state-law claims. Second, the Governor is not complaining of any violation of his own First Amendment rights, but instead has claimed the ability to vindicate the First Amendment rights of other persons who are not before this Court. Third, the Governor is inappropriately asking a federal court to declare the scope of his authority to issue executive orders under state law.
.
The Democratic leader of the Illinois Senate says Gov. Bruce Rauner’s proposed budget is “as unworkable as it is unconscionable.”
Senate President John Cullerton spoke Monday in Chicago. He says the new Republican governor’s spending plan would hurt the middle class by cutting programs such as public transportation, higher education and substance abuse treatment.
I’ll post more when it becomes available.
*** UPDATE 1 *** The Senate Democrats posted some background info and some videos here.
*** UPDATE 2 *** From Lance Trover…
President Cullerton has met with the Governor repeatedly and has had every opportunity to discuss any issue he wants, including the ongoing negotiations between his office and the Governor’s Office over the $1.6 billion budget hole Governor Rauner inherited. It’s unclear why President Cullerton seems intent on undermining a bipartisan agreement to clean up the fiscal mess that Senate Democrats created.
“His budget hurts middle-class families. Gov. Rauner sees the budget as merely a math problem. I see the people behind those numbers, people struggling to get ahead,” Cullerton, who leads the Democrat-controlled Senate, said as he one-by-one ran through Rauner’s proposed slashes to health and human services, foster care, higher education and transportation programs.
“I probably could have saved a lot of time and simply told you who’s not hurt in this budget. There’s the wealthy. And then there’s the corporations. The only cuts they received were to their tax rates. This budget is not the shared sacrifice he promised in his inauguration speech,” Cullerton said. […]
“To be fair, there were some bright spots in the governor’s budget. For instance, Gov. Rauner fully embraces President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. It’s a bold move given that so many of his GOP counterparts are talking about repealing Obamacare should they end up in the White House,” Cullerton said. “And I applaud the governor for making early childhood, elementary and high-school education a priority. He proposed a nearly $500 million increase in education funding. He didn’t tell you how he pays for it.”
“We haven’t actually sat down and had a meeting where the leaders and the governor talk about our (2015) budget,” Cullerton told reporters after making remarks to the City Club of Chicago. “We’ve had our staff people do it. So maybe that’s what they do in Washington or the private sector, but … we haven’t had an actual negotiation.” […]
The way Cullerton describes the situation, Democrats are just waiting for an invitation from Rauner.
“He hasn’t scheduled one, and he’s the governor,” Cullerton said.
* The BGA has an interesting story about what’s behind Gov. Bruce Rauner’s local “right to work” zones idea….
The concept of right-to-work zones has been pushed nationwide by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative policy group that drafts model legislation.
Jon Russell is director of ALEC’s program for cities and counties. Russell said that in Kentucky, where ALEC has advised leaders, the measures are meant to cover private sector workplaces like the General Motors Corvette plant in Warren County, the first in the country to pass such an ordinance. […]
Brent Yessin is a Florida attorney who started lobbying and nonprofit organizations promoting right-to-work zones. Proponents will be pushing the zones in Ohio and Pennsylvania, along with Illinois, he said.
“It is a grassroots locally driven process,” Yessin said. “It’s not a cookie-cutter approach. I can’t just take what I did in Kentucky and do it in Illinois. But still there are some lessons that are applicable. It’s a movement that will continue to grow.”
* The Kentucky legislature refused to pass a right to work bill, so some locals did it on their own…
The governor could push state legislation meant to enable the local right-to-work laws. Or individual municipalities and counties could pass such ordinances without state legislation. But federal labor law says only states or territories can pass right-to-work legislation, and unions have promised to sue if local bodies try to do it on their own.
In Kentucky, where six counties have passed such legislation, Attorney General Jack Conway, a Democrat, issued an opinion on Dec. 18 that stated the measures violate federal law. Last month a group of labor unions sued regarding the ordinance passed in Hardin County, Kentucky.
[Director of the Illinois chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business] Kim Maisch thinks legal challenges to right-to-work zones would be unfair.
“We’ve seen organized labor try to pass a lot of things via ordinance at the local level,” like minimum wage laws and responsible bidders ordinances; those issues are covered under different federal laws than union organizing.
“We find it ironic they oppose the other side utilizing that route,” she said.
Rep. Elaine Nekritz, one of the architects who built SB 1, is among those who believe that the authority exists in the right circumstances for the state to curtail those benefits and, if the case against SB 1 is judged on that basis, it would stand. […]
And the court’s ruling in this case could have impact well beyond our own state borders. SB 1 supporters we spoke with, including Rep. Nekritz, said that if the high court provides absolute protection for pensions it “will mark a sea change here and everywhere” because virtually every constitutional provision going back to the Civil War has been found to have limitations through reasonable police powers. For example, standards for search and seizures, the power of eminent domain, the right to bear arms and the free speech rights we already mentioned.
A number of friend-of-the-court briefs offered by constitutional scholars and others detailed the case law that supports upholding such powers regarding pensions. Because justices agreed to expedite the case, those briefs will not be part of the written record, but Ms. Madigan should have no trouble proving the state’s case regarding the need to exercise police powers in the current pension crisis, particularly given that the state’s pension clause makes clear that pension agreements are contractual and therefore subject to contractual law.
We believe that if they view all of the evidence, justices will see that doing nothing about pensions is the equivalent of shouting “fire” in that crowded theater and the fallout will be more than this financially troubled state can stand.
In reality, few absolutes are really that, and even our most well-known federal amendments to the constitution have restrictions. Our First Amendment right to free speech is not absolute – as evidenced in the oft-quoted “can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater” scenario. Our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is restricted each time we go through airport security. And the Eighth Amendment “absolute” prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment allows capital punishment to be decided on a state-by-state basis.
And yet, Judge Belz chooses the state pension funding provision of the Illinois State Constitution as an absolute. We don’t think so.
Is the pension clause in the state Constitution, which protects benefits from being impaired or diminished, so absolute and so ironclad, that it trumps all else? In a world of severely restricted public resources and the state’s staggering $110 billion unfunded pension liability, should pension payments always be first in line, ahead of schools, prisons and social services?
A powerful constitutional argument says no. The argument, which we hope will prevail, says that the state’s pension clause is not absolute, that it doesn’t trump all else. In extreme circumstances such as those we find ourselves in today, benefits can — and should — be reduced. Public employees unfairly carry the burden on this, but the law leaves their benefits largely intact while scaling back annual cost of living increases. Most important, the law greatly reduces a very real risk of insolvency for the state’s pension funds, which would be far worse for a retiree. […]
The unions refuse to entertain this view, saying there can be no exceptions. That absolutist view leads to the second, equally convincing argument. In constitutional law, there is no such thing as an absolute right, a right that isn’t subject to exception or cannot be regulated, as a group of law professors wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court. Even the country’s most highly cherished rights – the First Amendment right of free speech and the Second Amendment right to bear arms — are subject to limits. The language is absolute, but the practice never is, with every right potentially subject to regulation for pressing reasons.
“Constitutions are always subject to interpretation and I think, historically, have not been considered to be absolute,” [Rep. Elaine Nekritz] said, citing the U.S. Constitution’s right to bear arms as one of those examples that show a provision “replete with restrictions.”
The state points out that prior to the 1970 Constitutional Convention that enacted the pension clause in question, pension benefits were considered “gratuities” that could be changed at any time. Madigan’s office says the convention delegates created a layer of protection around benefits by ensuring they would be considered a contractual relationship. The state claims all contracts are understood to be changeable.
“If the pension clause really bars the state’s exercises of its police powers under every possible circumstance, no matter how dire the consequences, then the ‘contractual relationship’ the clause creates is unlike any other contractual relationship ever recognized in American law,” lawyers for the state wrote.
Madigan’s office is careful to say that accepting the contract theory won’t lead to lawmakers using it to justify slipping out of other contracts at will. The state lawyers claim that police powers only apply in certain circumstances, although they don’t address the threshold for triggering those powers.
“What we are trying to merely say,” convention delegate Henry Green said in 1970, “is that if you mandate the public employees in the state of Illinois to put in their five percent or eight percent or whatever it may be monthly, and you say when you employ these people, ‘Now, if you do this, when you reach sixty-five, you will receive $287 a month,’ that is, in fact, what you will get.”
The plaintiffs further bolster their argument by citing a letter from then state Sen. E.B. Groen to delegate Green. In the letter, Groen claims Green’s proposal for what would later become the constitution’s pension clause was “inflexible” and “would only serve to curtail the powers of the Legislature and limit its authority.” Groen urged Green to revise the clause by making the protection “subject to the authority of the General Assembly to enact reasonable modifications .…” Green rejected the idea, and Groen’s proposal was never presented to the rest of the delegates. […]
Illinois’ pension systems have been underfunded since at least 1917, the plaintiffs say, noting that the state commission tasked with overseeing the systems at the time said they were “moving toward crisis” due to insolvency caused by “financial provisions entirely inadequate for paying the stipulated pensions when due.” In 1969, the year prior to the Illinois Constitution and its pension clause being adopted, the state pension systems were only funded at about 41.8 percent, the plaintiffs say. By 2013, when the law in question was passed, the systems were funded at 41.1 percent.
The state’s pension systems have always had enough money available to pay their existing retirees. Instead, pension underfunding refers to the systems’ inability to pay now for all current and future benefits – a distinctly unlikely scenario that would only arise if all existing employees retired at once and began drawing a pension. Illinois’ underfunding is still considered a problem, however, because most other states can cover a significantly higher percentage of their current and future pension obligations, making Illinois look bad by comparison. […]
One of Rauner’s proposed changes hinges on defining benefits as only those already accrued, excluding future benefits yet to be earned. However, Rauner’s plan may be undercut by the plaintiffs’ arguments in the existing pension lawsuit. The plaintiffs cite Constitutional Convention delegate Helen Kinney, who said in 1970 at the convention: “All we are seeking to do is to guarantee that people will have the rights that were in force at the time they entered into the agreement to become an employee ….”
While I agree that this pension clause is unlike any other pension clause or contract, it was purposely drafted to be as rigid as possible. The whole intent behind the clause was to prevent the GA and the governor from doing exactly what they ended up doing with SB1. Delegates rejected a mandate on full government funding, but the clause they adopted was seen as a way of scaring the politicians into doing the right thing. Obviously, it didn’t work.
* And while you can accurately say that all other constitutional rights are limited, that’s because of the way they’re drafted. Here’s the First Amendment…
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Let’s take the “freedom of speech” example since it’s cited so often by SB 1 proponents. The founders did not explicitly define what free speech actually is. That’s implicitly left up to Congress and the courts.
Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.
“Membership…” is what it is. And while “enforceable contractual relationship” may be left open to some interpretation, “the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired” is clearly not. It’s gonna be really tough to get around that crystal clear language and its obvious intent.
* Schock and ten staffers at Manhattan’s Palace Hotel on the goverment’s dime. How delightful…
Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., took at least 10 of his House staffers on a $10,053 taxpayer-funded trip to New York last September, where most of them had few official duties, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.
Schock was in New York for events on Sept. 27 and 28 connected to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the U.S. — and given the latitude House members have with their taxpayer allowances – not at issue is whether Schock personally conducted official business.
But a Sun-Times examination has revealed that most of the Schock staffers — who worked in Peoria or Washington — did almost no government work during their taxpayer-funded weekend in New York. […]
He did attend two events where Modi spoke, so some staff assistance is justifiable. Of the three other Illinois lawmakers who also traveled to New York to hear Modi speak, none brought staff with them for that speech.
A chastened U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock said Friday that he had fallen short on how his office handled record-keeping, and personally on the “out of touch” perceptions he’s created of his travel, as he moved to try to contain a burgeoning scandal into his travel and expenses now in its second month.
At a hastily called outdoor news conference at his campaign office in Central Peoria, the fourth-term lawmaker announced he would be hiring third-party firms to handle his official congressional office spending records and campaign records moving forward. He also said he has hired an East Peoria-based CPA firm to review his office procedures to find other areas that might be falling short. […]
“I know that when I take a trip, and I post photos online, it can create the misimpression of being out of touch, or an image that is not worthy of my constituents,” he said. “I have tried to balance being a young congressman and doing things differently and more open with maintaining a level of seriousness on the issues of the day. I know some days I have failed at this.”
“I get the optics,” he said. “I get the fact that for a lot of people that seems out of touch and unnecessary. So without a doubt I’ll be thinking twice about using that [private charter flights] mode of transportation, and the result will be we’ll have to schedule accordingly and continue to do my best to get to as many places as possible.”
The Chicago Sun-Times reports Schock made the September trip for events connected to a U.S. visit by the Indian prime minister. But the newspaper says most Schock staffers did almost no government work there.
Schock told reporters Monday it was a “very legitimate trip” and that he was “honored” his staff could be there.
* Gov. Bruce Rauner sat down with the Wall Street Journal for a wide-ranging and highly flattering profile…
Mr. Rauner, a self-made multimillionaire, offered to raise private money for the renovation, but he was told that donations could not be accepted for a state building. “I said, ‘I’m trying to save the taxpayers millions of dollars,’ ” he tells me. “ ‘Why can’t I put in some money? The roof, the basement, the elevator—I’ll fix it.’ They said no.” By the same token, when Mr. Rauner informed the bureaucrats in Springfield upon his election that he didn’t intend to take a salary as governor, he says he was told, “we have to send you a salary, and you can send it back.”
OK, first of all, I’m not sure why he was told that they couldn’t use private money to fix up the mansion. They handle private money at the mansion all the time. Maybe I’m wrong here, but it puzzles me.
Secondly, the “bureaucrats” aren’t responsible for this salary thing. It’s in the Constitution. Emphasis added…
Officers of the Executive Branch shall be paid salaries established by law and shall receive no other compensation for their services. Changes in the salaries of these officers elected or appointed for stated terms shall not take effect during the stated terms.
When we meet, the governor is coming off his Feb. 18 budget address, in which he laid out a slate of tough-love reforms: cuts to state transfers to local governments, adjustments to government employees’ health plans, and structural changes to public-union pensions. The howling from Democrats has been fierce, but Mr. Rauner isn’t backing down. “I’ve been involved in a lot of turnarounds,” he says. “A key lesson in a turnaround is go big, go strong, go fast early. You don’t wait around; you don’t think about it; you don’t wonder.”
The governor was sworn in on January 12th. Today is the 57th day of his administration. Other than the budget, which is chock full of holes and gimmicks, and despite all his big talk about right to work laws, he has yet to propose and then publicly get behind a single piece of legislation.
This month justices will hear arguments on whether a 2013 law cutting retirees’ annual cost-of-living adjustments passes constitutional muster. Whatever the justices decide, Mr. Rauner says, his plan will go forward, even if he has to pass a constitutional amendment by referendum to allow the changes. “I don’t have a Plan B,” he says. “I have a Plan A.”
He’s amazingly confident in his abilities, isn’t he? He thinks he can get three-fifths majorities in both chambers to put an amendment on the ballot? Wow. Rep. Elaine Nekritz, by the way, told Rick Pearson over the weekend that she could only make it about half way through the article, and the “I don’t have a Plan B” was a big reason for that.
“Everywhere I look inside state government, the unions have been running the process, dictating the terms, setting the work rules and setting the agenda inside government,” Mr. Rauner says. “The taxpayers, school children, businesses, homeowners, small business owners have been abused and left out of the process.”
As the state’s annual budget debate gets under way, Democrats are pushing for tax hikes. Some of the legislators want higher fuel taxes. Michael Madigan, speaker of the state House of Representatives, is pushing for a 3% surcharge on millionaires. “Talk about a flow of job creators leaving the state if they put that in,” Mr. Rauner says.
The governor is most definitely a supply sider. He’s got the lingo down pat.
Governor Bruce Rauner announced today he has selected Donald Stolworthy, 54, of Arlington, Va. to lead the Illinois Department of Corrections as its next Director. Stolworthy brings 15 years of corrections experience to the position and is a recognized expert in corrections reform.
Currently, Stolworthy works at the U.S. State Department in the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) as a Corrections Team Leader. He conducts assessments of foreign prison systems to see how the United States can help transform those systems and further U.S. strategic interests. Stolworthy is also the senior corrections subject matter official at the INL and routinely provides policy guidance to senior State Department officials and Assistant Secretaries of State.
Stolworthy also managed the construction of all five prisons in Iraq as the Deputy Director of Operations and Warden Adviser while working for the State Department and U.S. Justice Department. The construction of those prisons was completed on time and under budget by $8 million. In this position, Stolworthy also advised and mentored the Iraqi warden and deputy warden on the best correctional practices.
Stolworthy’s career in corrections began in 1999 as a Probation and Parole Officer with the Alaska Department of Corrections. He was promoted three years later to Deputy Commissioner of Operations where he oversaw a number of reforms to make the department more efficient. For example, he created the position of Chief Time Accounting Officer, revised sentence computation policy to reflect statutory changes, improved accuracy of sentence computations and reduced the department’s liability.
In addition to his corrections experience, Stolworthy worked as the Special Assistant to the Governor of Alaska, as a legislative aide to a member of the Alaska House of Representatives and as the Division Director of the Alaska Charitable Gaming Division.
Stolworthy graduated from the University of Wyoming with a bachelor’s degree in history. He also went through Probation and Parole Officer Basic Academy in Alaska.
He seems pretty darned qualified.
* And the feds believed he was so honest that they recruited him for a sting operation. From a 2007 AP story…
A former deputy commissioner of the Department of Corrections was revealed as a government informant during the corruption trial of former state Rep. Tom Anderson. […]
Frank Prewitt, a former Corrections commissioner and later a consultant for Cornell Industries, Inc., a firm that develops and operates private prisons, testified that he worked with Stolworthy in 2004 to develop a compromise on competing legislative bills to build a new prison.
One measure could have led to a Cornell prison in Whittier. The other, supported by the administration of then-Gov. Frank Murkowski, pushed a state-run prison in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Prewitt testified that Stolworthy told him he was worried about losing his job because of union opposition to a private prison.
Prewitt said he assured Stolworthy that “people would be there for him” if that happened. Prewitt told jurors that Stolworthy eventually sought money as a sort of insurance policy if he lost his job.
Stolworthy did so because the FBI asked him to, FBI spokesman Eric Gonzalez said Saturday. Stolworthy was working for the FBI as a “cooperating witness,” he said.
“We approached him out of the blue,” Gonzalez said. “We asked for his help and he said he’d be glad to help us.”
Gov. Bruce Rauner has met with dozens of state legislators both individually and in small groups since his election. By all accounts, every meeting has been cordial and he has scored lots of points with legislators who aren’t accustomed to this sort of gubernatorial attention.
Until last week, that is, when he had the Senate Black Caucus over to the mansion for breakfast.
Things started out well enough, but they turned south in a hurry when Rauner said he couldn’t accept the Senate super-majority party’s stand-alone proposal to patch about $600 million of the current fiscal year’s $1.6 billion budget deficit with transfers from special state funds. He wanted, he said, an “all or nothing” solution.
Rauner repeatedly said he wouldn’t raise taxes to solve this year’s budget problems and therefore absolutely needed to make big cuts. Legislators should “trust me,” Rauner said. “We don’t know you,” was their reply.
And since his proposed budget for next fiscal year, which begins July 1st, demands huge cuts to major social programs, why should they trust him to not go after those same cherished programs in this year’s budget if they give him the carte blanche he is demanding to make whatever reductions he desires?
The governor in turn warned the legislators that up until now he’s been blaming former Gov. Pat Quinn for this mess, but if they didn’t give him what he wanted he’d start blaming the General Assembly. Threats don’t often work too well with that caucus, to say the least.
You may recall that Gov. Rauner’s public criticism of the Senate Democrats after they moved their budget fix bill out of committee last week was pretty harsh. “After weeks of detailed negotiations, including three hours yesterday morning,” Rauner’s spokesman said via a press release, “it is clear that Senate Democrats are more interested in playing politics than solving this problem.”
But Rauner was told by Caucus members that as far as they knew there had been no “real” negotiations. Instead, Rauner’s staff has been meeting with legislative staff. But that staff has no authority to approve any agreements. The legislative “budgeteers” (appropriations committee chairmen) have so far been eliminated from the process. And they, along with the chamber leaders, are the only ones who can negotiate any deals, particularly in the Senate.
Indeed, a spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan said last week that his boss did not view the staff talks as “negotiations.” Instead, he said, staff is listening to the ideas presented by the governor’s budget folks and is offering advice on what is doable and what has to be changed to be legal and what isn’t legal.
And speaking of the House, the governor also accidentally stepped on a land mine during the meeting. Rauner had met with a few members of the House Black Caucus the night before, and he chastised the Senate Democrats for not working with him like the House has been.
As anyone who has ever visited with African-American state Senators undoubtedly knows, there is no more “anti-House” group in their entire chamber than the Senate Black Caucus.
“We’re not the House,” the governor was informed.
Making matters somewhat worse, failed African-American Chicago mayoral candidate Willie Wilson showed up in Springfield the day before and asked Senate President John Cullerton to convene a Senate Black Caucus meeting with him that very day.
Wilson essentially offered himself up as a conduit to the Republican governor, whom he supported last year. One member did give him a list of items on her wish list and he apparently took it to the governor. Rauner told the Caucus that he’d read the list and could support almost everything in it for next fiscal year, but he would need them to back him 100 percent this fiscal year. His offer was firmly declined.
At one point, the governor’s demands grew so loud and insistent that one Black Caucus member noted aloud that Illinois voters “didn’t elect a king” last year.
Senate President Cullerton has so far avoided the fate of his Democratic predecessors, who almost constantly battled internal caucus intrigue and coup attempts. He has done this partly by listening respectfully to all sides and not proceeding without consensus. Unless those wounds are healed quickly and the governor begins to accommodate opposing views, he is going to have a really tough time with his budget fix.
Sexual harassment allegations against former state Treasurer Dan Rutherford can move forward in a politically charged federal lawsuit that helped doom the Central Illinois Republican’s 2014 bid for governor.
In a 29-page decision issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow denied Rutherford’s request to dismiss former employee Edmund Michalowski’s claim that he was forced to work in a hostile environment.
In a lawsuit filed in February 2014 — five weeks before the Republican primary for governor — Michalowski alleged his former boss grabbed at his genitals in the guest bedroom of Rutherford’s rural Chenoa home and on two occasions grabbed his arm before making sexual comments.
Rutherford, of Chenoa, has denied the charges, but Lefkow said the claims have merit.
“These allegations go ‘beyond offhand comments and into physical assault’ and raise the possibility of severe or pervasive sexual harassment from a speculative to a plausible level,” Lefkow wrote.
Unions late Thursday filed a motion to dismiss the case Rauner filed against them in federal court last month.
Rauner wants a judge in Chicago — and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court — to declare so-called “fair share” dues unconstitutional. He also issued an executive order ending the requirement that nonmembers pay the dues.
The unions’ motion filed in U.S. District Court says the issue should be decided in state court because it’s a question of state law.
The Court must dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction. The Governor’s claim does not “aris[e] under” federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §1331, because the federal question the Governor identifies – whether fair-share fees violate the First Amendment – would be raised only as a defense to a state law proceeding to enforce the fair-share provisions. The Governor also lacks standing to bring this suit in federal court because the state law and state contracts do not affect him in his personal capacity.
Alternatively, the Court should dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, because fair-share provisions are a constitutional means of preventing free riding in a system of exclusive representative collective bargaining. “The First Amendment permits the government to require both public sector and private sector employees who do not wish to join a union designated as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative at their unit of employment to pay that union a service fee.” Locke v. Karass, 555 U.S. 207, 213 (2009) (unanimous decision).
The only federal issue identified in the Governor’s declaratory judgment complaint is whether fair-share fees violate the First Amendment. That First Amendment issue would arise only as a defense to the Unions’ hypothetical state law action to enforce the fair-share provisions of their contracts or to set aside the Governor’s Executive Order as inconsistent with the IPLRA.
The Unions’ hypothetical, well-pleaded claim for breach of contract would not present a federal question. See Minn. Elevator, Inc. v. Imperial Elevator Servs., 758 F. Supp. 2d 533, 537 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (elements of a breach of contract claim under Illinois law). The issue whether provisions of the contract are unconstitutional would be raised, if at all, only as a defense to the state-law breach-of-contract claim. See Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Titan Int’l, Inc., 400 F.3d 486, 900 (7th Cir. 2005) (illegality of the contract is an affirmative defense under Illinois law); Am. Buyers Club of Mt. Vernon, Ill. Inc. v. Grayling, 368 N.E.2d 1057, 1059 (5th Dist. 1977); see also Narkiewicz-Laine v. Scandinavian Airlines Sys., 587 F. Supp. 2d 888, 890 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (“Plaintiff brought state-law breach of contract claims. Because the conditions and limits of the Montreal Convention are defenses to the state-law claims raised by plaintiff, they do not provide a basis for federal-question subject matter jurisdiction.”).
Nor would a hypothetical, well-pleaded claim by the Unions to set aside the Executive Order as contrary to the IPLRA present a federal question. The IPLRA states on its face that it prevails over executive orders, 5 ILCS 315/15(a), and state statutes are presumed to be constitutional, see People v. Garcia, 770 N.E.2d 208, 209 (Ill. 2002). An argument that the fair-share provisions of the IPLRA are not valid would be raised, if at all, only as a defense to the Unions’ claim.
State officials lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of state law in federal court where the officials are not personally adversely affected – that is, where their interest is official, rather than personal. For example, in Smith v. Indiana, 191 U.S. 138 (1903), a county auditor brought an action alleging that a state property tax statute was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that:
the jurisdiction of this court . . . can only be invoked by a party having a personal interest in the litigation. It follows that he cannot sue out a writ of error in behalf of third persons. . . . It is evident that the auditor had no personal interest in the litigation. He had certain duties as a public officer to perform. The performance of those duties was of no personal benefit to him. Their nonperformance was equally so. He neither gained nor lost anything by invoking the advice of the supreme court [of Indiana] as to the proper action he should take. He was testing the constitutionality of the law purely in the interest of third persons, viz., the taxpayers. . . . We think the interest of an appellant in this court should be a personal, and not an official, interest.
The Seventh Circuit, in D’Amico v. Schweiker, 698 F.2d 903 (7th Cir. 1983), similarly “dismissed for want of standing a suit brought by administrative law judges of the Social Security Administration who were complaining that a directive by their superiors required them to decide social security cases in a manner contrary to law,” because “they did not suggest that compliance with the directive would reduce their pay or benefits or increase their work or anything of the sort.” Cronson v. Clark, 810 F.2d 662, 664 (7th Cir. 1987) (discussing D’Amico). D’Amico determined that “these administrative law judges . . . are the wrong people to be raising with us the question whether the challenged instruction is lawful.” D’Amico, 698 F.2d at 906; see also Finch v. Miss. St. Med. Ass’n, 585 F.2d 765, 774 (5th Cir. 1978) (Governor of Mississippi lacked standing to challenge constitutionality of state law).
Here, the Governor’s complaint does not identify any personal interest in this case sufficient to confer standing. The Governor is not personally subject to a fair-share requirement. Indeed, Governor Rauner is not even a party to the collective bargaining agreements with the defendant Unions; they were entered into by a state agency. See Complaint ¶ 14. Nor would the Governor receive any additional money if he prevailed in this litigation. The complaint, instead, alleges that this litigation is an exercise of the Governor’s “duty to protect the First Aendment rights . . . of all people in the State of Illinois,” and his desire not to “violat[e] his oath of office.” Complaint ¶ 84. But those are classic “official[] interest[s]” long held to be insufficient to confer standing. Smith, 191 U.S. at 149. […]
The Governor cannot confer standing upon himself to challenge the constitutionality of state law by issuing Executive Order 15-13 to instruct his subordinates to disobey the IPLRA. See D’Amico, 698 F.2d at 906 (“[I]f administrative law judges do not have standing to bring such a suit they cannot confer it on themselves, bootstrap fashion, by disobeying the instruction and then complaining that their disobedience laid them open to discipline.”). The Governor is free to rescind his Executive Order at any time. In essence, “[t]he mental disposition of the Governor is all that gives him cause to complain; were he to change his mind tomorrow and decide, rightly or wrongly, that the state statute is valid, he would no longer have any interest in the case. He has no personal stake in the outcome of this case; he will not be affected favorably by a decision that the statute is unconstitutional nor adversely by a decision that it is valid.”
Even if the Court has jurisdiction, the complaint still must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The complaint seeks a declaration that “[t]he Fair Share Contract Provisions under the IPLRA are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.” Complaint at 21. At the same time, the complaint accurately states that “[i]n Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), the United States Supreme Court considered and approved ‘fair share’ provisions under a public sector labor contract.” Complaint ¶ 71. That concession is fatal to the request that fair share provisions be declared unconstitutional. “If a precedent of [the Supreme] Court has direct application in a case,” the obligation of a lower court is to “follow the case which directly controls, leaving to [the Supreme] Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989). There is no question that Abood squarely held that fair share agreements are constitutional “insofar as the service charge is used to finance expenditures by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.” 431 U.S. at 225-26. And just recently, the Supreme Court refused to even consider the “argument that Abood should be overruled.” Harris v. Quinn
The governor’s office replied by reiterating yesterday’s comment about the state fair share lawsuit.
The Illinois Kids Count 2015 report, also released Thursday, found 21 percent of the state’s children were living below the federal poverty line in 2013 — a rate that held steady from the previous year.
The report’s authors say the rate remains higher than prerecession figures, blaming long-term economic issues for prolonging the problem. Meanwhile, they say deep cuts proposed by Rauner during his budget address last month would be “very harmful.” Areas of concern identified by the group include more changes to the state’s already underfunded child care program and Medicaid cuts that could close hospitals. […]
The report from Voices for Illinois Children cites the effects past cuts to state funding have had on programs intended to mitigate the effects of poverty. Joseph warned that possible future cuts would only exacerbate problems for low-income families.
“If they’re not below the poverty level now, it would make it more likely they would slip into poverty,” he said.
CeaseFire’s interventions are “theory driven.” The program is built upon a coherent theory of behavior that specifies how change agents could be mobilized to address some of the immediate causes of violence: norms regarding violence, on-the-spot decision making by individuals at risk of triggering violence, and the perceived risks and costs of involvement in violence among the targeted population. Some of the program’s core concepts and strategies were adapted from the public health field, which has shown considerable success in addressing issues such as smoking, seat belt use, condom use, and immunization.
The evaluation of CeaseFire had both process and outcome components. The process portion of the project involved documenting how the program actually looked in the field. This included issues involved in selecting target neighborhoods, choosing local host organizations, and staffing, training, and management practices. The outcome evaluation used statistical models, crime hot spot maps and gang network analyses to assess the program’s impact on shootings and killings in selected CeaseFire sites. In each case, changes in the target areas after the introduction of the program were contrasted with trends in matched comparison areas. […]
An examination of the impact of CeaseFire on shootings and killings found that violence was down by one measure or another in most of the areas that were examined in detail. Crime mapping found decreases in the size and intensity of shooting hot spots due to the program in more than half of the sites. There were significant shifts in gang homicide patterns in most of these areas due to the program, including declines in gang involvement in homicide and retaliatory killings.
Even so, the program has its detractors. Its funding has always been controversial in the General Assembly, and Mayor Emanuel eliminated its million dollar grant in 2013. Also, the study’s authors admit that some of the crime declines might not be due to CeaseFire’s activities.
CeaseFire, the highly regarded but sometimes controversial anti-violence program featured in the documentary “The Interrupters,” is losing state funding, the result of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s executive order freezing spending.
The program was budgeted to receive $4.7 million from the state in fiscal 2015, which ends June 30, according to Rauner’s proposed budget for fiscal 2016. The Rauner administration has proposed slashing CeaseFire’s funding almost 60 percent, to $1.9 million, in fiscal 2016. […]
CeaseFire was notified yesterday that its funding was suspended, effective immediately, in a letter sent by John Maki, executive director of the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, which administers the grant. The letter blamed the Illinois Legislature, saying it did not appropriate enough money for the program.
Maki was the former executive director of the John Howard Association of Illinois, a prison reform group, before his appointment by Rauner. Maki did not return a call requesting comment.
In his email, Arthur said CeaseFire will work to restore the state funding but was politic in asking supporters to refrain from “any attacks toward the governor and his administration.”
Friday, Mar 6, 2015 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
Credit unions were first exempted from federal income tax in 1917 because of their unique structure as not-for-profit financial cooperatives. Contrary to what some banks may suggest, credit unions pay property, payroll, and sales taxes.
Yet while banks decry the credit union tax exemption, nearly 40 percent of banks in Illinois elect Subchapter S status under the Internal Revenue Code to avoid federal income taxation. That’s $59 million in diverted tax dollars. These for-profit Sub-S banks also pay dividends and fees — not to customers, but to directors/investors/stockholders who may or may not be depositors — to the tune of more than $1.3 billion. This is far in excess of the estimated federal income tax credit unions would pay.
In contrast, credit unions return net revenue to their members. The banker argument against the credit union tax exemption is simply disingenuous. If banks really believed that credit unions operate with an unfair competitive advantage, they would restructure their institutions to credit union charters. None would, however, because doing so would expose them to becoming democratically controlled, locally-owned financial cooperatives governed by their very own volunteer members that put people before profits — all the virtues that define the credit union difference.
The state became Annie Audenas’ substitute parent in the mid-1990s after Illinois child welfare officials said they found evidence of neglect in her family and placed the infant in protective custody.
Audenas was adopted by age 3 but the arrangement soured during her rebellious teen years and she returned to state care. She attended five high schools and became a mother, all by the age of 16.
Despite the odds, Audenas is now a 20-year-old college student working toward a degree in human resource management while raising her daughter in Naperville and holding down a part-time job. She credits Illinois’ long-standing practice of supporting older foster youth for a few extra years beyond age 18 with helping her to succeed.
But, under proposed cuts to the Department of Children and Family Services, thousands of older state wards for whom Illinois failed to find permanent homes before they aged out of foster care will be forced to fend for themselves. […]
But service providers, juvenile court officials and other advocates say the governor’s plan would require statutory changes to state laws that recognize the rights of wards up to 21. And watchdog groups who monitor DCFS’s foster care services under legal consent decrees vowed to go back to court if the aging out population isn’t protected.
Illinois pioneered this program and about half of all states now do the same. Go read the whole thing.
“It’s hard to take issue with the governor’s decision on the budget when there are no good places to cut, particularly when you’re dealing with the kids we serve,” he said.
Democrats on a Senate budgeting committee criticized Gov. Bruce Rauner’s administration Thursday for what they said are excessive salaries being paid to Rauner staffers.
The criticism came as the Senate Appropriations Committee reviewed Rauner’s budget request for next year, which the administration said would cut spending by 10 percent.
Sen. Dan Kotowski, D-Park Ridge, singled out the $198,000 salary being paid to Trey Childress, Rauner’s deputy governor. Kotowski said it was substantially more than was previously paid.
“That’s an obscene amount of money,” Kotowski said.
* But perhaps Koto should’ve done a little bit of research first. Erickson reports…
Republican lawmakers came to Rauner’s defense, saying Democratic legislative leaders also pay their top aides comparable salaries. Tim Mapes, chief of staff to House Speaker Michael Madigan, for example, earned $193,500 in 2014. David Gross, who is Senate President John Cullerton’s top aide, makes $179,000.
State Sen. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, said Democrats shouldn’t be critical of Rauner after they pushed through a faulty budget last year that is now threatening to cut off funds for child care providers and a host of other programs.
“Here’s the deal: The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife,” Rose said. “The hypocrisy is extreme.”
So Mapes makes more than Rauner’s chief of staff, and almost the same “obscene” amount as Rauner’s deputy governor, with Gross not far behind.
A freight train loaded with crude oil derailed in northern Illinois, bursting into flames and prompting officials to suggest that everyone with 1 mile evacuate, authorities said.
The BNSF Railway train derailed Thursday afternoon in a rural area where the Galena River meets the Mississippi, according to company spokesman Andy Williams. The train had 103 cars loaded with crude oil, along with two buffer cars loaded with sand. A cause for the derailment hadn’t yet been determined. No injuries were reported. […]
Firefighters could only access the derailment site by a bike path, said Galena Assistant Fire Chief Bob Conley. They attempted to fight a small fire at the scene but were unable to stop the flames.
Firefighters had to pull back for safety reasons and were allowing the fire to burn itself out, Conley said. In addition to Galena firefighters, emergency and hazardous material responders from Iowa and Wisconsin were at the scene.
The company says the train’s tank cars were a newer model known as the 1232. That model was designed during safety upgrades voluntarily adopted by the industry four years ago. The improvements were meant to prevent cars from rupturing in the event of derailments.
But 1232 standard cars involved in three other accidents have split open in the past year, leading some to call for tougher requirements.
* From the governor’s office…
Governor Rauner today activated the State Incident Response Center (SIRC) in Springfield to ensure state personnel and equipment are ready to be quickly deployed if needed to help local emergency responders deal with a crude oil train derailment and subsequent fire that occurred this afternoon near Galena in Jo Daviess County.
Governor Rauner also deployed staff from the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) to the scene.
“I activated the State Incident Response Center to ensure we’re ready to act quickly if any local responders need our assistance,” said Governor Rauner.
Representatives from several state agencies are reporting to the SIRC, including IEMA, IEPA, Illinois State Police, Illinois Department of Transportation, Illinois Commerce Commission, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Illinois National Guard, Illinois Department of Central Management Services, Illinois Department of Public Health, Illinois Department of Human Services, Illinois Department on Aging, Illinois Department of Corrections, Office of the State Fire Marshal and the American Red Cross.
The SIRC will remain activated as long as necessary.
*** UPDATE *** The governor has proposed some steep cuts to the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, which handles crises like this one. Among the proposed cuts are to local responder training (56.7 percent), recovery and remediation (83.9 percent), operations, (20.15 percent) and equipment (4.4 percent). Click here for the list.
The Illinois AFL-CIO and 26 unions that represent more than 40,000 Illinois state employees today filed suit in circuit court to invalidate Gov. Bruce Rauner’s unlawful executive order that violates state law and multiple collective bargaining agreements by blocking state agencies from complying with the fair share provisions of those agreements.
“The men and women who do the real work of state government are first responders, nurses, caregivers and corrections officers. They plow snow, protect children, care for veterans and do many other tough, essential jobs that benefit all Illinois residents,” Illinois AFL-CIO president Michael T. Carrigan said. “Governor Rauner’s political obsession with stripping their rights and driving down their wages demeans their service, hurts the middle class and is blatantly illegal. We’re asking the court to restore the integrity of our democratic process and make clear that no one, not Governor Rauner or anyone else, can place themselves above the law.”
The court filings follow earlier statements from Illinois Comptroller Leslie Munger, a Republican, and Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a Democrat, who say that Gov. Rauner’s order is illegal. Fair share agreements are authorized by the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act—which was signed into law by Republican Gov. Jim Thompson in 1983—and included in each of the state’s contracts with each of the unions in question.
The unions’ Circuit Court complaint says the Governor’s order violates state government’s separation of powers. “Rauner has usurped the constitutional power of the legislative branch by promulgating an Executive Order that effectively repeals a duly passed Public Act [and] has unlawfully exercised the executive power vested in the Governor,” the litigation states. “The executive power is the power to faithfully execute the laws enacted through the legislative process, not to refuse to implement the laws that have been properly enacted by the State.”
Gov. Rauner has falsely claimed that his order makes workers more “free.” In reality, contrary to the governor’s frequent misstatements, no employee is required to join any union. Instead, fair share agreements provide that a union-represented employee who chooses not to join and pay dues is obligated only to pay a proportional fair share of the cost of negotiating and administering the union contract from which they benefit. (Also contrary to the governor’s statements, by law, fair share excludes political contributions.)
The governor’s own rhetoric and the language of the executive order itself make clear that his true intent is to drive down the wages earned by first responders, teachers, nurses, corrections officers, child protection workers, and other state employees by weakening their unions.
“Governor Bruce Rauner believes state employees are overpaid and receive excessive benefits for their public service. He wants to cut their wages and benefits,” the lawsuit states. “The Executive Order is expressly intended to prevent ‘Illinois state employee unions’ from ‘using … fair share fees to … influence …wages, pensions and benefits, that are currently mandatory subjects of collective bargaining under the Illinois Labor Act.”
Later Thursday the unions will file a motion to dismiss Gov. Rauner’s related lawsuit in federal court, pointing out that a state court is the appropriate venue to enforce state law.
In addition to the Illinois AFL-CIO, the 26 unions that are party to the legal filings include affiliates of AFSCME, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Illinois Nurses Association, the Illinois Federation of Teachers, the Teamsters, SEIU, the Laborers, the Police Benevolent and Protective Association, the Bakery Workers, the Bricklayers, the Carpenters, the Electrical Workers, the Food and Commercial Workers, the Machinists, the Operating Engineers, the Painters, the Plumbers and the Metropolitan Alliance of Police.
*** UPDATE *** Lance Trover, Director of Communications, Office of the Governor…
“We always expected the government union bosses to fight to keep their stranglehold over Illinois taxpayers in place. These forced union dues are a critical cog in the corrupt bargain that is crushing taxpayers, and the government unions will do anything to keep the broken status quo.”
Democrat Brad Schneider is in Washington, D.C., this week, having met with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Tuesday about a potential third rematch run against Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Dold in 2016.
Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering is in the capital this week, too, talking to people to explore a run as a Democrat for the same seat in the north suburban 10th Congressional District.
Rotering didn’t say for sure whether she’d pursue a primary challenge to the one-term former Rep. Schneider if he decided to pursue a return to Congress. But the first-term mayor also said she’s leaning toward a run.
“We’re getting a really great response from people in the district,” Rotering said. “We are definitely leaning toward going for it.”
He’ll have higher name ID than any other foreseeable opponent, so Schneider is the heavy favorite. But, even though it seems doubtful at this point, maybe people will think he’s already had enough chances. What say you?
House Speaker Michael J. Madigan on Thursday announced the creation of a bipartisan task force focused on studying the way in which the state distributes funding to Illinois’ public schools.
“Our goal is to strengthen every school across Illinois, so we need to make sure any significant changes are given a thorough review,” Madigan said. “Changes to the school funding formula always raise significant concerns from a number of educators, parents and legislators. We want to make sure we take a good look at proposed revisions to the funding formula to determine how we can best educate students across the state.”
The task force made up of Democratic and Republican members of the Illinois House will discuss how changes in the school aid formula could impact schools throughout the state. While House Democrats have been studying various proposals for several months, Madigan formed the task force because he believes any solution ultimately approved by the General Assembly must be bipartisan and good for students across Illinois.
“When you consider the issues that every community in Illinois is concerned about, state support for schools is right at the top of the list,” Madigan said. “A vital issue like this that affects every public school and the education of about 2 million students deserves an in-depth and proper discussion.”
The bipartisan House Education Task Force will include legislators representing Southern Illinois, the collar counties, suburban communities and Chicago and will be chaired by state Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago.
The task force’s first meeting will be at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, March 11 in Room 118 of the Capitol. Madigan expects additional hearings to be scheduled at a later time.
Madigan’s appointments…
Chair: Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago
John Bradley, D-Marion
Linda Chapa LaVia, D-Aurora
Fred Crespo, D-Hoffman Estates
Will Davis, D-Homewood
Marcus Evans, D-Chicago
Laura Fine, D-Glenview
Esther Golar, D-Chicago
Elizabeth “Lisa” Hernandez, D-Cicero
Rita Mayfield, D-Waukegan
Emily McAsey, D-Lockport
Michelle Mussman, D-Schaumburg
Elgie Sims, D-Chicago
*** UPDATE *** From Sen. Andy Manar…
Two years ago when we began conversations fair school funding, I knew that our the mission would take years of education and work to build a consensus for change. Since that time, there has been clear progress on bipartisan solutions for classrooms across this state. That progress can now be accelerated as leaders in the Illinois House outline specific actions that can be taken to close the funding gap for Illinois schools.
I applaud the leadership of Speaker Michael Madigan in creating a forum for continued discussion that leads to action. His action today confirms that he understands the importance of school funding equity just as clearly as he did when he supported Governor Jim Edgar’s sweeping reforms in 1996. I applaud his continued leadership and the engagement of the House of Representatives as we advance legislation this year.
* I don’t disagree about the need for more infrastructure spending, it’s just that this is a pretty darned big ask…
The Transportation for Illinois Coalition argues the current setup of the motor fuel tax, which drivers pay on a gallon of gas each time they fill up at the pump, falls woefully short of properly funding upkeep of roads and bridges — not to mention improvements. The group says Illinois needs to pump another $1.8 billion a year into the state’s transportation system to cover day-to-day maintenance as well as pay for a borrowing plan to finance long-term upgrades.
While the coalition has backed away from specifics in an effort to begin fresh negotiations with Rauner, its general outline calls for raising the gas tax to keep up with inflation. It also has pitched a menu of other possibilities, including eliminating tax exemptions for ethanol, increasing drivers’ fees, expanding the sales tax to cover services ranging from auto repairs and oil changes, and taxing the sale of food and prescription drugs.
Illinois imposes a base tax rate of 19 cents per gallon for gasoline and 21.5 cents a gallon for diesel, though other fractions of a penny are added on to pay for costs associated with environmental cleanup and underground storage of fuel. That doesn’t include the 6.25 percent sales tax the state also collects on each gallon of fuel, federal taxes, or the variety of other levies some counties and cities like Chicago also pile on top.
* It turns out that Model Illinois Government is a lot like the original. From the MIG Journal…
The first floor session of the Model Illinois Government Senate convened in the Illinois Old State Capital Friday evening.
The first bill on the docket set term limits for Senate and House leadership positions. It would require a four-year absence from serving after the completion of an individual’s second term.
The majority stood in opposition of the bill, arguing it limits the will of the people exercised in elections.
“Maybe if the Republicans could get someone elected they wouldn’t feel the need for term limits,” said Senate Majority Leader Anna Mulch.
Heh.
* Anyway, I posted that little story as a prelude to telling you that my intern, Marc Reiter, was elected MIG governor over the weekend after serving two terms as House Speaker. Before you congratulate him, just know that he has to put a budget together next year which closely resembles Gov. Bruce Rauner’s proposal.
So, condolences might actually be in order.
* Today is also Marc’s birthday. From his Facebook page…
Not so long ago, Exelon…was extolling the merits of an open market for power as its profits rolled in. Now, with power prices plunging, Exelon has lost enthusiasm for the open markets it championed in the 1990s and wants the Legislature to devise a new formula that will protect its profits, quite likely driving up utility bills for homeowners and businesses.
If Exelon is hard up, they can show us. The company should open its books to show how its nuclear fleet is performing.
What’s good for Exelon doesn’t much matter if it’s bad for the rest of Illinois.
Good old Exelon. The company has come up with legislation to subsidize its nuclear reactors, get electric users throughout the state to pay for it and claim it’s in the interest of clean energy.
State lawmakers need to see this bill for the dirty trick it is and kill it.
A federal court-appointed monitor said Wednesday she wants to sign off on all political hires, promotions or transfers within the problem-plagued Illinois Department of Transportation until the agency audits its employment mess.
Special Master Noelle Brennan also said the ability of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s new IDOT director to fire “at will” past IDOT political appointees has been “undercut” by the transfer of many of such hires into union positions that carry job protections.
The paper’s story is pretty comprehensive, so go read it all.
* To the report itself, which is here. This item comes as absolutely no surprise, but we can probably expect to see some names mentioned in the near future, so expect some juicy headlines…
Although the full extent and influence of political manipulation is still under investigation, a preliminary review reveals that numerous elected officials have sought to influence a range of job actions at IDOT, including, hires, transfers, promotions, and raises. Many of these politically favored individuals appear to lack any specialized experience or skills that uniquely qualify them for IDOT positions, but were nonetheless selected for positions and promotions outside any competitive process, in violation of the Rutan principles.
Moreover, IDOT employs numerous family members of politicians or senior IDOT officials in ostensibly “exempt” positions, although many of those individuals perform routine duties. This results in the exclusion of other, more qualified individuals, from consideration. […]
The OEIG Report identified a number of Staff Assistants that had political connections. Additionally, the OEIG Report identified a number of Staff Assistants with a family member in a senior IDOT position. The OEIG Report explained that the political connections of the Staff Assistants were determined primarily on reviewing the resumes of the Staff Assistants. Our initial review of the testimony provided by witnesses and application materials found that, beyond the individuals identified in the OEIG Report, at least an additional 30 Staff Assistants appeared to have political connections or a relative in a senior IDOT position. Our initial review also suggests that certain elected officials are more heavily involved in making recommendations for employment to IDOT than others. We believe further investigation is warranted to determine both the breadth of political influence in IDOT’s employment practices and the processes that led to IDOT’s acting on the political recommendations.
Additionally, due to questionable agreements between IDOT officials and certain unions, IDOT’s ability to comply with the Rutan principles going forward is compromised. These agreements, which have resulted in the unionization of numerous Rutan-exempt positions, have undercut the new administration’s ability to exercise its rights under the Rutan principles. Now, although IDOT has hired hundreds of individuals based on political factors, because of the terms of existing union contracts, IDOT’s new administration may not be able to fire those same individuals, based on political factors.
Gov. Rauner’s spokesman responds…
“The report confirms that previous governors were engaged in a corrupt bargain with government unions, making illegal political hires and putting them into protected government union positions. Governor Rauner is committed to reversing the illegal hiring scheme and enacting civil service reforms that will prevent these types of abuses from happening in the future.”
Brennan reported Wednesday that “there is evidence concerning the involvement of the [Pat Quinn] Governor’s Office that has not been fully explored” and “further investigation is required into the Governor’s Office’s role in the misuse of the position” of staff assistant.
The monitor’s preliminary report, part of a federal lawsuit by anti-patronage activist Michael Shakman against the Illinois Department of Transportation, said Gov. Bruce Rauner’s administration should freeze hires and transfers in some IDOT positions until conflicting hiring and union rules are rectified. […]
[Brennan] said the agency should identify every position in which an employee theoretically can be hired or fired at will but also has collective-bargaining rights that restrict terminations.
Rauner, who’s making noise in union-friendly Illinois with plans to control labor’s influence, balked at the special master’s proposal to freeze activity in those jobs. Rauner’s office said that while the Republican is “committed to reversing” illegal hiring, the proposal would mean leaving critical IDOT positions vacant.
Although the State agreed in principle with this recommendation, it did not agree to implement it on the ground that the recommendation could cripple some current IDOT operations.
As an example, the State noted the need to hire four attorneys into Rutan-exempt union positions in IDOT’s Office of Chief Counsel. Although we understand and appreciate the State’s reasons for not agreeing to implement this particular recommendation, we cannot overemphasize that, failing to stop the hiring, transferring or promoting of individuals through the Rutan-exempt process, into union covered positions, at least until a complete job audit is completed, all but guarantees future violations of the 1972 Decree and compounds the existing difficulty of reconciling the rights of current governmental employees, as demonstrated by the pending Teamsters litigation.
Look, there are things the state has to do. And some things just can’t wait for a hiring process fix, no matter how much that fix may be needed.
I don’t think the Rauner administration is being unreasonable here, and Brennan isn’t exactly furious, either. The easy road is to scream “Rauner is violating his campaign promise!” The truth, like governing, is much more complex.
Thursday, Mar 5, 2015 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
In 2011 the Workers’ Compensation “Reform” package was signed into law, aimed at lowering costs for employers in Illinois. These changes have had a negative effect on workers in Illinois and their ability to receive fair and reasonable compensation when they are injured on the job and have not resulted in insurance premium reductions for employers in Illinois, even though workers’ compensation costs have undeniably come down.
The National Academy of Social Insurance reports workers’ compensation is the second most profitable line of insurance after auto insurance. Over 300 insurance companies compete for and write workers’ compensation insurance in Illinois, more than just about any other state in the country. If Illinois is so unprofitable, why are these insurance companies climbing over one another to sell insurance here? It may be because insurance companies in Illinois are essentially unregulated when it comes to setting insurance premiums.
Decreased benefits for injured workers, medical reimbursements plummeting, claims falling, and reduced costs have all resulted in big profits for the insurance industry. This is the real result of the 2011 workers’ compensation reform.
Any further changes in workers’ compensation laws should instead look to promote insurance premium transparency and oversight – not further sacrifices by the injured worker.
For more information on workers’ compensation, click here.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is accusing Illinois governor Bruce Rauner of trying to balance the state’s budget on the backs of Chicago’s working families.
Everything from kids to cops, technology to transit could be impacted by state budget cuts, according to Mayor Emanuel.
“I’ve been very clear to all the leaders and to the governor,” Emanuel said on Wednesday. “This budget will not stand. It’s wrong for Chicago and I believe it’s wrong for Illinois.”
The City forecasts Rauner’s proposed budget would mean 1,000 fewer cops, $130 million in cuts to the CTA and 60,000 kids losing subsidized daycare.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel offered up a double serving of political theater Wednesday, attacking his friend Gov. Bruce Rauner’s attempt to slash state spending and airing a TV ad in which the mayor appeared contrite about his first term but didn’t specify what he got wrong. […]
Emanuel’s castigation of Rauner’s budget blueprint represented a time-tested way for a Chicago mayor to score quick political points by attacking whoever is in the governor’s mansion. […]
Emanuel’s criticism of Rauner also served the political purpose of attempting to distance himself from a Republican private equity specialist he once did business with during a brief stint as an investment banker that made the mayor personally wealthy.
On Wednesday, Emanuel set out to prove that he is, indeed, fighting for everyday Chicagoans and does not deserve the “Mayor 1 percent” label that his challenger has used to define him.
“You ran for office saying, ‘Here are the challenges.’ I get it. [But] I don’t think you did the hard work of saying, ‘Early childhood is important. Here’s how we’re gonna do it different.’ They just said cut. And the brunt of the cuts are the hundreds of families and parents that rely on a qualified, healthy environment for their kids.”
Instead of wielding the budget ax in a way that would deprive Chicago of “hundreds of millions of dollars,” he said Rauner should zero in on “corporate loopholes” like the ones the mayor closed in Chicago.
Implied, but not stated, was Emanuel’s claim that he had the guts to take on the corporate donors who filled his campaign fund with $15 million.
He also said the governor’s proposed cuts gave new meaning to the phrase “Women and children first.”
“These are just random cuts. There are no reforms to asking a core question: If this is an essential service, how do we do it? How do we do it better? Are we the best to do it?” Emanuel said of Rauner’s budget. “This budget is wrong. It’s wrong for Illinois, it’s fundamentally wrong for Chicago, and it will not stand.”
“The mayor should go to Springfield and sit with Rauner. Maybe open up one of those expensive bottles [of wine] and figure out how he’s going to really fight for the people of Chicago when his buddy is the person who’s bringing on the bad news that will spare no one, especially the most vulnerable people,” Garcia said.
“Governor Rauner had to make some hard decisions to balance a $6 billion budget shortfall caused by years of fiscal neglect and bad practices. The amount of money transferred to local governments has ballooned by more than 40 percent in the last decade and the reduction to local governments proposed in the budget puts Illinois in line with neighboring states. In Governor Rauner’s budget proposal, Chicago’s overall revenues are reduced by less than 2.5 percent. Through the local government task force, Governor Rauner is committed to working with local communities to reduce costs and give them increased flexibility. Additionally, as part of his Turnaround Agenda, the governor proposed empowering local residents with tools to control costs at the local level and get more value for their tax dollars.”
[Mayoral candidate Chuy Garcia] has declined for months to say what he would do about the financial crisis confronting Chicago, even as he criticizes moves the mayor has made.
Since December, Garcia has said only that he is “studying” the budget crisis.
“What I’m telling you is that I’m consulting with experts on financial matters of the city. I will not be pressured by his time frame,” Garcia said. “We’re going to be releasing some of those positions shortly.”
Garcia’s been ducking questions about Chicago’s budget crisis since he filed to run for mayor last fall. He told FOX 32 News he does not “foresee” any tax increases, but won’t say what he would cut or how he would pay with more than a billion dollars needed for police, fire and teacher pensions next year.
Mayor Emanuel has now used a Garcia quote against him in an ad posted on socialmedia.
* Garcia is so far taking the Bruce Rauner approach, as is Emanuel, for that matter.
It’s hugely important for candidates to discuss what they plan to do after the election, but the Chicago media mostly gave Rauner a pass last year when he promised details for months and never provided them.
Candidates always learn from the success of other candidates. The city’s two newspaper editorial boards rewarded a candidate with endorsements last year who stayed mostly silent about his plans. This was a horrible precedent, particularly by the Tribune, which brushed off their own reporters’ pointed questions to the would-be governor as unnecessary.
* So, like Emanuel, I’d love to see Garcia go into some detail. But I don’t really blame Garcia after what happened last November. The guy who ran on a promise to renew a tax hike lost, and the guy who refused to say just about anything won. It’s truly frustrating.
“We’re out of money,” he said in Springfield during a talk to YMCA representatives from around the state. “I didn’t create this budget, but we’re out of money. We’re not funding our day care. It’s outrageous. We should have fixed this a month ago, but the political process, dragging their feet and pushing — it’s sausage being made.”
Yes, this should have been fixed a month ago, but managing the legislative sausage process isn’t like managing a business. There’s a whole lot of give and take. And there was too much take and not enough give for most of that time.
“It’s not true,” Cullerton said of suggestions the [Senate] Democrats are blocking progress. “If that were the case, I’m sure the House would have passed the bill over to us already.” […]
Staff members for each of the four legislative leaders and in Rauner’s office have been meeting to work out a compromise. Sen. Matt Murphy, R-Palatine, said negotiators made a lot of progress Monday and that the Rauner administration had backed off its initial position that it wanted fairly extensive authority to shift around money.
Senate Democrats said they want more detail from Rauner about what he intends to do, especially in light of his budget proposal for the fiscal year that begins July 1, which included extensive cuts to many human services programs.
“It’s very hard — it’s very complicated because we’re talking about his proposals, cutting a lot of programs,” Cullerton said of the negotiations. “I think maybe the administration thinks that since they’re new, ‘Here’s a proposal, just vote on it.’ We have to get votes for it, and that’s difficult.”
Let’s take those paragraphs one by one.
1) The House doesn’t want to advance legislation unless there’s an agreement, and there’s no agreement. But Cullerton does have a point.
2) Legislative approp staff has never before had the authority to sign off on any agreements, or even make them. They’ve cut legislators who chair approp committees completely out of the process.
3) This has been a long-standing demand by the SDems.
