* In 1879, a Springfield photographer created a montage of Illinois House members. He took all their photos and then pasted them into one big picture. These pics of the montage do not do it justice…
The montage was found years ago and sent to a restorer. The finished product was unveiled earlier this week. It’s on the third floor and you should definitely go take a look.
* National Review has published a fawning profile of Dick Uihlein…
As a young man in 1969, Uihlein learned about getting things done in politics when he knocked on doors for a little-known congressional candidate in a special election: Phil Crane, who won that race and whose career as a conservative in the House of Representatives lasted until 2005. “It was a huge upset and it was done through the grassroots — and that’s where a lot of my activity is now,” says Uihlein. For a long while, however, Uihlein put politics on hold. “I was so dang busy building this company,” he says. “There was so much going on.” Decades passed. When his father died, in 2005, he knew he wanted to get more involved.
Around this time, Uihlein met John Tillman, a businessman who was looking for work after selling his sporting-goods store. “I’d been getting the Uline catalogue for a while,” says Tillman. “So I wrote a letter to the owner.” They met and discussed a sales job, but soon their conversation turned to Tillman’s real passion: creating a network of freedom-minded organizations in Illinois. “Dick became my anchor donor,” says Tillman. An initial gift of $50,000 helped Tillman launch the Illinois Policy Institute, a free-market think tank. Millions followed, destined for a variety of projects, including the Liberty Justice Center, a public-interest law firm with national sway: Its Janus v. AFSCME case, which challenges the rights of labor unions to collect fees from nonmembers, is now before the Supreme Court. A ruling, expected by the end of June, has the potential to halt a major source of revenue for Democrats.
Uihlein also donated to candidates for office in Illinois, trying to strengthen the Republican presence in Springfield as well as to make the GOP caucus there more conservative. Democrats still dominate the state legislature, but Uihlein won’t bow to pessimism: “Nothing is hopeless.” He points to the election of Governor Bruce Rauner in 2014 as proof that Republicans can compete in a state that many other conservatives have written off. Yet 2017 featured tax hikes as well as Rauner’s approval of an abortion-funding bill, prompting Uihlein to break with him and donate heavily to Jeanne Ives, a conservative state lawmaker who nearly beat Rauner in a March primary. “Jeanne proved that people are hungry for change,” says Uihlein. He’s now skeptical about Rauner’s ability to deliver it but says that the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, J. B. Pritzker, would be a disaster for Illinois: “I will vote for Rauner over Pritzker.” […]
Uihlein’s political activism has made him a person of interest in the media, even though he rarely grants interviews. Crain’s Chicago Business invoked the bogeymen of liberalism when it dubbed him “the Koch of conservative politics in Illinois.” Recent articles in Politico, the Washington Post, and elsewhere have treated him with a mix of curiosity and suspicion, and the Daily Beast even dug up a story about a woman who claims to have suffered from employment discrimination at Uline — a tale that wouldn’t have interested its editors if Uihlein weren’t a major funder of Republicans. Uihlein doesn’t relish the attention, but he recognizes its inevitability: “I’m not going to give up supporting the people who deserve it. That’s what they want me to do.”
Regulators in Wisconsin say they have found probable cause to believe that Liz Uihlein and her company, industrial supply giant Uline, may have refused to hire an executive because she suffered from lupus, an autoimmune disease, according to internal state government records obtained by The Daily Beast. Uline denies the charges. […]
The job applicant said in her complaint that, during her interview, Uihlein even inquired about her prescribed dosage of Prednisone, a steroid used to treat lupus, “which is a highly inappropriate line of conversation during a formal interview and none of her business.” […]
In a response to the complaint, Uline, the company, flatly denied that it had declined to hire the applicant due to her medical condition. Uihlein’s discussion of that condition, the company’s attorney wrote, “was one of compassion, not discrimination. Ms. Uihlein relayed her and her husband’s own personal experiences with his autoimmune disease in an effort to empathize with Complainant.”
“Yes, Ms. Uihlein referenced her own husband’s personal experiences as detailed in my initial complaint,” the applicant responded in a written retort, “but it wasn’t to empathize with me over my disease but rather to further justify her concerns that she didn’t believe someone with an autoimmune disease could do the job.”
* The Chicago Reader has a long piece on the dysfunction within Cook County Court Clerk Dorothy Brown’s office, whose antiquated work processes have apparently made it difficult for those fighting to overturn convictions — including wrongful convictions — to get their day in court. It’s entitled “Hundreds of Illinois prisoners languish behind bars waiting for Dorothy Brown to do her job“…
This could be the story of two wrongful convictions. This could be the story of how James Allen was railroaded by a Chicago police detective and Cook County prosecutors who didn’t think he deserved to be free. But before he has the chance to prove that he’s innocent of two murders, Allen needs one thing: for Dorothy Brown, the clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, to do her job. […]
Allen is far from the only defendant whose postconviction proceedings have been stalled because Brown, the guardian of more than a million boxes of Cook County criminal and civil case records, has delayed in finding or failed to supply requested files. Currently some 25 other defendants represented by the appellate defender’s office are in the same situation, and some delays have dragged on for more than a year. (No data is available for the number of defendants stymied by this issue who have private attorneys.)
Brown’s failure to provide warehoused records in a timely manner has been an ongoing problem for years. In 2013, after being publicly chastised by the appellate defender’s office, Brown promised sweeping reforms in her management practices. She also touted major improvements in record storage and retrieval in 2014, when the county opened a $24 million, state-of-the-art warehouse in Cicero, largely for her office’s use. However, as Allen’s case indicates, timely record retrieval continues to be a challenge for the clerk of the circuit court. Since the passage of a new law in 2017 that requires Brown to provide records for appeals electronically, there’ve also been significant delays in scanning and transmitting warehoused files. Allen’s attorneys haven’t been able to get digital records to proceed with his appeal of a rejected postconviction motion in the Gibson case for more than a year. The appellate defender’s office says more than 600 of its cases are currently held up for the same reason.
“This is not normal,” says Patricia Mysza, head of the state appellate defender’s Cook County office. “Our clients have a constitutional right to an appeal. . . . It’s the clerk’s obligation to prepare the complete record on appeal. And without that record our clients are not getting their constitutional right.”
Definitely go read the whole thing. At my old job, I wrote plenty about a legal fight attempting to force Brown to make e-filed complaints available to media immediately. But these stakes are far higher. Also a good read: Tribune’s story on Brown’s office from February.
Illinois judges would have discretion to temporarily suspend the gun rights of someone who displays violent warning signs if family members, housemates or police seek court intervention, under a proposal that cleared the state House on Wednesday.
Proponents have billed the legislation as a way to prevent mass shootings and other common gun-related deaths. Opponents, meanwhile, question its necessity and whether it would interfere with law-abiding gun owners’ civil liberties.
Sponsoring Rep. Kathleen Willis, D-Addison, said the measure would create a way to prevent gun violence before it occurs by getting guns away from someone who raises “red flags,” such as concerning posts on social media or threatening remarks.
She said families and friends of people who show signs of mental illness or distress “oftentimes feel powerless” and would rather not put their loved ones in a situation where they could face arrest. […]
Under Willis’ proposal, a judge could suspend someone’s gun rights for up to six months.
The bill passed with 80 votes.
* Other bills…
* Carle-initiated bill to help those working while on public aid heads to Rauner: The pilot program is intended to help boost financial self-sufficiency among 500 future entry-level Carle employees also participating in Carle’s job-readiness and learning program. Some may also be participating in Carle’s healthy-beginnings program.
* Rauner gets bill legalizing industrial hemp: Rebecca Osland is a lawyer with the pro-farming Illinois Stewardship Alliance. She says the move can add hundreds of new jobs and up to $100 million in state revenue.
* Illinois Senate panel endorses wage-equity plan: A showdown between two Democratic measures to close the wage gap ended with Illinois senators rejecting one considered more business friendly. The Senate Labor Committee voted 11-6 Wednesday to approve legislation prohibiting employers from asking applicants their salary history. It has stiffer penalties for violators than one supported by business interests.
* Lawmakers debate non-death penalty parts of Gov. Rauner’s safety rewrite: But, Rauner spokeswoman Rachel Bold later walked back Risley’s claim, saying the administration would like the General Assembly to consider the comprehensive package that ““Believe it or not the University of Wisconsin did a study and deer can see blaze pink less than they can see blaze orange and people can see it more,” said Costello. gets to the heart of critical public safety issues.” “A motion to accept the governor’s changes to House Bill 1468 has been filed by the sponsor,” Bold said. “There is a clear opportunity for the House to consider the package in its entirety.”
But what about the Trib, which has been hostile to the Democratic nominee on its editorial page and has published some highly damaging reports on his taped phone conversations with former Gov. Rod Blagojevich on its news pages? “We have put out a schedule for televised debates,” spokeswoman Galia Slayen emailed back. Is that a yes, a no or a maybe? “No comment.”
Okay, how about WTTW, which traditionally sets both candidates on the same stage at the same time and has one of its capable crew of political vets question them? “They’re not on the list,” the campaign replies.
One insider tells me the Pritzker people haven’t yet decided about the Tribune. As that source puts it, “They haven’t exactly been nice.”
“Nobody owes us anything. Candidates owe voters,” Tribune Editorial Page Editor John McCormick responds. “We’ve had nothing but good conversations with Mr. Pritzker, and will look forward to to another before the election.”
Lots of Democratic legislative candidates have, in the past, refused to attend the Trib editorial board endorsement sessions, so that wouldn’t be totally unprecedented. But skipping WTTW would not be cool.
But Rauner campaign spokesman Will Allison said the Pritzker camp did not reach out to them beforehand. Allison said it “doesn’t mean we aren’t going to do those debates,” but noted they were not given any “heads up.” Allison, too, said the participating TV stations were also not notified.
If the schedule goes as Pritzker planned, both candidates have a big stake in downstate Quincy. Rauner has been embroiled in controversy over his administration’s response to a deadly Legionnaires’ outbreak at the Illinois Veterans’ Home. He spent several nights there in January and a task force he created is poised to try to rebuild the flailing home. Pritzker has continually hammered Rauner over the outbreak, labeling the governor’s handling of it “fatal mismanagement.”
Of note, the Quincy debate is the only one the billionaire Hyatt heir included outside the Chicago area in his schedule - avoiding both southern Illinois, as well as the Springfield-Decatur-Champaign market which candidates typically try to hit. Coverage from WCIA has been unfavorable to Pritzker at times, as the only television station in Springfield broke a story in January on his use of offshore accounts, dominating the political news cycle in Illinois.
Rauner has shied away from debates in the past, participating in just one face-to-face appearance with his conservative challenger in the Republican primary, state Rep. Jeanne Ives. The two faced off in a heated endorsement session before the Chicago Tribune editorial board, with Ives on the attack - likely a preview of the demeanor at debates to come, should Rauner agree to participate.
Sources in both parties and both chambers, and a source close to Rauner, all tell me the same thing: Real progress has been made by negotiators from the four caucuses, known as “budgeteers.” That progress has been affirmed by relatively tranquil if incomplete negotiations between the four legislative leaders and Rauner. […]
“We are doing absolutely everything we can to give the governor a reasonable budget that he can sign,” says one Democratic budgeteer. “I’d makes the odds 60-40 this gets done by the end of the month,” says one top Republican.
One factor that ironically may be working in favor of a deal is the latest flap over whether House Speaker Mike Madigan is serious about curbing sexual harassment by his associates and whether he retaliated against a House critic. With even many House Democrats not wanting a repeat of the budget standoffs of earlier years, the desire not to be in Springfield and under a harassment microscope “only increases the pressure on him” to finish up the budget quick.
But sources in both parties say they’re still not completely convinced that Rauner, running for re-election after last year’s budget and tax hike were enacted over his veto, really wants to move on.
One source close to him says he does, but laid down some conditions: The budget has to be balanced, more or less; it can’t include a lot of new spending; and there must be no new taxes in the plan.
A year ago on this date, the Journal Star joined with other Illinois newspapers to publish front-page editorials under the headline “Unacceptable” as our state government approached a third consecutive year without a budget. To give you a taste: “There is nothing wrong with Illinois but its politics … Govern, for a change. Resolve never to return Illinois to this hellish place again.”
Fast-forward 365 days and the contrast could not be more stark, the silence out of Springfield more profound.
“Please take that as a good sign for the moment,” said state Rep. Ryan Spain, sharing a sentiment largely echoed by his Peoria-area colleagues on both sides of the aisle. “Cautiously optimistic,” said Rep. Mike Unes, R-East Peoria, with some identical nods. […]
We’re told that bipartisan, bicameral, orderly and productive meetings have been taking place on a daily basis, outside the media glare. If that’s what it takes to get a budget that is balanced and on time, so be it.
Illinois’ key budget deadline is barely a week away and one of the state’s budget negotiators says he believes lawmakers can break a three-year trend and get a budget done on time.
“I’m very encouraged by where we are at right now,” State Rep. Dan Brady declared. “We’ve got communication going between all the rank-and-file, that’s the budgeteers.
For the first time in years, budget talks are looking up at the Capitol.
The deadline is in just eight days, but those negotiating final details aren’t breaking a sweat. Many say they’re optimistic it will be done in time.
House Minority Leader Jim Durkin (R) says communication is much better across the aisle this year. There was some fighting about a revenue estimate a few weeks ago, but he says they made it past that.
Durkin says this time around lawmakers are learning to trust each other. He anticipates a balanced budget, but says they’re still working to get there. He says they’re trying to work about five or six major issues first.
* I was in the House press box yesterday when Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) took a point of personal privilege to apologize to Grant Wehrli (R-Naperville) for “extremely inappropriate, intemperate language,” she had used earlier. The other reporters and I asked each other what had happened earlier, but no one knew.
Turns out, a hot mic had caught Currie calling Wehrli an “idiot” off mic during debate on SB427, which would allow the governor or mayor to appoint members the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Board for three terms instead of two terms. The rationale behind the bill, Currie said, is to not impose an arbitrary limit on the time someone could serve “if that individual is making major contributions to the success of this enterprise.”
Wehrli, and most Republicans who stood up against the bill pointed to the bigger movement (championed by Gov. Rauner) to implement term limits, while the bill would extend the amount of time someone could serve in a public role. Plus, Rauner has already vetoed a version of this bill…
Wehrli: Leader, in your opening remarks, you mention that this is somebody is making a major contribution to the board. Can you define what a “major” contribution is, as opposed to a minor contribution?
Currie: A major contribution would be in the eye of the governor or the eye of the mayor. All this bill does is to say either the governor or the mayor has the opportunity to appoint someone to a third term. And I don’t understand why the governor would veto that bill. He doesn’t have to exercise the authority if this bill were to become law. He doesn’t need to appoint someone to a third term. But why he would deny that opportunity to the Mayor and to any future governor makes zero sense to me.”
Wehrli: So when you’re saying major contribution, you’re talking about work product and not financial contributions in some way, is that correct?
Currie: What I said is it depends on what the mayor or the governor wants to do. This is permissive. This doesn’t require them to use my standard, your standard or anybody else’s standard. It just says that they have that opportunity.
After a two-second pause, Currie added, “idiot” off-mic.
“I certainly hope that Rep. Wehrli will accept this apology in the manner in which I offer it, which is to say with deep sincerity,” Currie said. “And I hope that you will still be my friend.”
Wehrli replied that he “warmly” accepted it, adding that he looks “forward to continuing our work collaboratively on solutions for the great state of Illinois.”
The Internal Revenue Service is preparing to crack down on states that try to circumvent a new limit on the state and local tax deduction, saying on Wednesday that it will not allow local governments to find creative ways to help individuals fully deduct those taxes.
The I.R.S. warning comes in response to states, like New York, that have looked for ways to blunt the impact of a new $10,000 cap on the state and local tax deduction, known as SALT. The cap, which was included in last year’s $1.5 trillion Republican tax overhaul, hit predominantly Democratic, high-tax states hardest since it limits the amount of state and local sales, income and property taxes that residents can deduct from their federal taxes.
That has prompted a scramble among local lawmakers to find ways to allow constituents who owe more than $10,000 to continue to fully deduct those taxes and avoid a tax increase.
The I.R.S. said it would not tolerate states that try to flout the law — a stance that is likely to be challenged in court.
New York, New Jersey and Connecticut have passed laws to allow taxpayers to circumvent the federal cap, according to the Tax Foundation.
“In the notice, the IRS emphasized the ’substance over form’ doctrine, meaning that the IRS cares about the actual substance of a payment, and not the name or form it may be given,” the foundation wrote in an email. “While the actual guidance remains forthcoming, this is clearly bad news for the charitable contributions in lieu of taxes approach.”
* From a letter to state legislators that went out this morning…
NO ABORTION FUNDING IN THE BUDGET
On September 28, 2017, Governor Rauner signed into law House Bill 40, which authorizes the use of taxpayer funds for abortions through Medicaid and state employee health insurance. This new mandate is not eligible for reimbursement by the federal government, putting the entire cost on Illinois taxpayers.
House Bill 40 did not contain an appropriation; therefore, funding for elective abortions will come out of state Medicaid and health insurance funding.
No one knows how many more abortions there will be due to House Bill 40, but no matter the number, the principle is the same: our state tax dollars should not go to pay for abortion. You have the opportunity to ensure that no taxpayer money is used to end the life of any unborn child.
We are asking all members of the Illinois General Assembly to refuse to provide the means for House Bill 40 to accomplish its deadly consequences by including language in annual appropriations denying the use of tax dollars for elective abortions.
Due to our less-restrictive laws, in 2016 there was a 40 percent increase in the number of people coming to Illinois from out-of-state to undergo an abortion, forcing Illinois taxpayers not only to pay for abortions of Illinois citizens but of those from out-of-state. House Bill 40 will accelerate this trend.
Please work with us to protect taxpayers and unborn children.
Robert Gilligan, Executive Director
Catholic Conference of Illinois
Mary Kate Knorr, Executive Director
Ralph Rivera, Legislative Chairman
Illinois Right to Life Action
Dawn Behnke, President
Illinois Federation For Right to Life
Bonnie Quirke, President
Lake County Right to Life
Eric Scheidler, Executive Director
Pro-Life Action League
This could make it more difficult to reach a budget deal. We’ll see.
*** UPDATE *** Statement from Brigid Leahy, Senior Director of Public Policy for Planned Parenthood Illinois…
“Whether she has private or government-funded health insurance, every woman should have coverage for a full range of pregnancy-related care, including abortion. Last year, the Illinois General Assembly recognized the right of women to safe and legal abortion regardless of how much money they make or how they get health care coverage when it passed HB 40. And, Governor Bruce Rauner showed leadership when he signed the bill into law. Now, in the last days of the legislative session, anti-abortion groups are calling for legislators to hold up the budget process so that they can deny a woman health coverage and overturn HB 40. This move is dangerous for the women who rely on Medicaid and State Employee Health Insurance, and it is irresponsible to all Illinoisans who are relying on the timely passage of a state budget. We urge the members of the General Assembly to pass a budget that serves the interests of all Illinoisans and not be distracted by cynical attempts to insert the issue of abortion into the process.”
…Adding… ACLU…
When it comes to the most important decisions in life – including whether to become a parent – a woman must be able to consider all options available to her, regardless of how little money she makes or how she is insured. Last year Illinois took a big step in respecting this goal for all women. Because of House Bill 40 being enacted into law, the State of Illinois joined the list of states recognizing that coverage for comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion, is critical to women’s health.
Politicians should not be allowed to deny a woman’s health coverage simply because she is poor. And attempting to turn back the clock through a budget maneuver should not be tolerated. Politicians have no business controlling the decision-making process for women regarding their most personal health care decisions.
State Rep. Steven Reick, R-Woodstock, said Illinois should cut spending instead of finding ways to increase revenue.
“Don’t talk to me about revenue until you can talk to me about how to control spending and things like that,” Reick said. […]
Reick said one thing lawmakers need to do is reform pension spending “where we’re not paying 25 percent of our budget toward past pension debt, allowing us to figure out how to do that without having to do taxes.”
Provides that, if the amount of the credit for residential real property taxes exceeds the taxpayer’s liability, that amount shall be refunded if the taxpayer is 65 years or older and has a federal adjusted gross income of not more than $50,000.
REPORTER 1: “Should McCann be included in the debates? Would you attend debates in which McCann is invited with Pritzker?”
RAUNER: [Laughs]
REPORTER 2: “Will you attend any debates? I don’t know if you’ve committed to any.”
RAUNER: [Laughs] “We’ll talk about the process of the election.”
REPORTER 2: “You can’t say now whether you’ll commit to being in-“
RAUNER: “Debates haven’t even come up yet, we’re barely getting started with the election.”
REPORTER 1: “We’ve reached out, we’ve reached out to you.”
RAUNER: “I’m sorry?”
REPORTER 2: “You haven’t-“
REPORTER 1: “We’ve reached out to your campaign.”
RAUNER: “Okay great, well you know what? There’s debates-”
REPORTER 2: “And we have not gotten any responses.
REPORTER 1: “No. No responses.”
REPORTER 2: “Collectively. So will you comment here, will you join debates?
RAUNER: “You guys sound like you’re as patient as me.”
REPORTER 1: The Pritzker campaign said yes.
RAUNER: “Of course we’re gonna – of course we’re gonna have debates, of course we’re gonna have debates.”
REPORTER 1: “Should – will Sam – Are you okay with Sam McCann being included in the debates?”
RAUNER: [Laughs]
Sounds like some media outlets have been trying to get something scheduled for a while now.
* Pritzker campaign today…
After participating in over 50 forums and several debates in the primary election, today JB Pritzker is announcing that he will participate in three media sponsored debates ahead of the November 6th general election. This includes a downstate debate that will be broadcast statewide and reflects the same number of televised debates as the last gubernatorial election.
“This is a critical election for our state and it is important for all voters in Illinois to hear from the gubernatorial candidates about their plans to fight for working families,” said JB Pritzker. “I look forward to sharing my vision for creating jobs, expanding healthcare, and investing in education and comparing it to Bruce Rauner’s failed record of causing a 736-day budget crisis, attacking public education, and driving the state economy into the ground. It’s time for a governor who will fight for all communities and bring people together to put Springfield back on the side of working families. I’m ready to move Illinois forward.”
September 20th: Debate Sponsored by NBC 5, Telemundo, Union League of Chicago, and Chicago Urban League – Chicago, IL
October 3rd: Debate Sponsored by ABC 7, Univision, and League of Women Voters – Chicago, IL
October 11th: Debate Sponsored by WGEM and the Illinois Broadcasters Association – Quincy, IL
I’m told there were no negotiations between the candidates in advance of this announcement. The Pritzker people didn’t even reach out to the Rauner organization before distributing this press release.
* From the Rauner campaign’s Will Allison…
Governor Rauner looks forward to participating in debates to talk about how JB Pritzker is wrong on taxes, corruption, and Mike Madigan.
Tuesday, Speaker Madigan reversed course from his earlier denials over the concerns I raised about retaliation and requested an investigation by the Legislative Inspector General. While I applaud his openness to an inquiry, I continue to have very real concerns about the venue he’s selected.
The Office of Legislative Inspector General made headlines late last year after it was revealed that the position of LIG had remained vacant for 3 years, a situation many in the Capitol were completely unaware of, despite the early discussions about problems with harassment in our Capitol. During the time the office was vacant, several complaints piled up unaddressed and we had to pass emergency legislation to extend the statute of limitation on cases that had died of neglect during that time. Some members of the General Assembly, myself included, suggested that the statute empowering the LIG be overhauled at the same time to better equip a new LIG to truly operate independently, but the changes made were limited to the timeline extension at that time.
While the reasons for the lengthy vacancy in the office of Legislative Inspector General were never publicly reported, news reports at the time suggest that the issue related to a situation where the LIG found cause to launch an investigation and was denied permission to open an investigation by the partisan leadership appointees to the Legislative Ethics Commission. It bears repeating here - the Inspector General cannot proceed with an investigation unless a panel of members of the body they are charged with overseeing grants them the permission to do so. The flaws in the process don’t stop there though, it is riddled with trap doors, blind alleys and loopholes designed to allow political consideration to bury any complaint that is politically inconvenient. In addition to the lack of true independence in choosing whether to proceed to the investigative phase, other problems include:
◼ Neither the LIG nor the Ethics commission are required to publicly share any information about complaints, investigations, or findings by the LIG, which is the mechanism that allows the partisan nature of the Ethics Commission to keep facts from the public.
◼ The Legislative Ethics Commission, the group of General Assembly members appointed by legislative leadership (4 Democrats and 4 Republicans), has the power to reject any findings of an Inspector General.
◼ A simple majority vote is required to move an action forward and no provision exists for breaking the tie vote, so anything serious could die for the lack of one vote. As a result, party line voting on the commission all but guarantees no serious consequences exist.
◼ The minutes of the meetings of the Legislative Ethics Commission are not required to be publicly disclosed.
There are a couple of pieces of legislation moving through the Senate now, where members are working together in a bipartisan fashion to find workable solutions to the problems in both the Legislative Inspector General’s office and the Department of Human Rights. The proposed changes to the Ethics Act are simple and straightforward and I stand ready to support these changes when the bill comes over to the House.
The proposed changes to the Ethics Act, carried by Sens. Cristina Castro and Karen McConnaghy, include:
◼ Most importantly, the bill will remove the outrageous barrier to investigative independence by removing the provisions requiring the Legislative Inspector General to seek the permission of the Ethics Commission before opening an investigation. As mentioned above, Illinois is the ONLY state in the country with such a provision in their Ethics Act.
◼ The bill will bring desperately needed transparency and accountability to the Office and the Commission, requiring publication of case summaries in instances where a violation has been found as well as mandating public release of meeting minutes. A supermajority, which by the design of the Ethics Commission would require bipartisan cooperation, will be required to quash the release of any case summary.
◼ Critically important for restoring faith in the process, four members of the public would join the Ethics Commission.
◼ Ethics Commission members involved in cases would be required to recuse themselves and be temporarily replaced on the commission.
◼ Finally, the bill sets out a process for the timely replacement of the Legislative Inspector General in the case of a vacancy.
Each chamber has other pieces of legislation on the topic, but progress has been limited. Just as I suggested last fall when this all began, it would be ideal if we could have started this process with the creation of a bipartisan, bicameral task force seeking real solutions to improve the workplace we all share.
* Related…
* DemToo? GOP fans out to hang #MeToo around Democrats’ necks: But Collin Corbett, a Republican consultant working on several legislative races, says the focus makes perfect political sense. “You’re going to see this in every campaign. It’s going to be highlighted in every campaign, whether it’s for state Senate or state House, unless the Democratic candidate is willing to go out and oppose Mike Madigan, which none of them have the guts to do,” Corbett said. Corbett said the #metoo movement “goes to the heart of Democratic support.” “It goes to the heart of Democratic control of the state because they control the suburbs, and suburban women are the most important bloc in any statewide campaign,” Corbett said. “You’re not going to see this as much of a problem in Downstate races. You’ll see it front and center in the suburbs.”
* Sen Kwame Raoul: “I’ve worked with Representative Kelly Cassidy for many years as a trusted colleague and close personal friend. She has my full support, not just in sharing her story this week but for the critical work she is doing on the bipartisan Sexual Discrimination and Harassment Awareness and Prevention task force.
I know they are working hard to address these issues and understand they will be releasing legislative proposals in the coming days. Representative Cassidy and I agree that this issue should not be politicized. It is too important, not only in her case but for all women. As Attorney General, I look forward to building upon this panel’s work to change the culture and ensure that all citizens have access to support and justice.”
* Ethics board says it lacks jurisdiction to take up sexual harassment inquiry into Madigan ally: In addition to the ethics panel, Hampton also wrote to City Hall’s top watchdog in her request for a review. On Wednesday, Inspector General Joseph Ferguson signaled there’s little room left for his office to pursue the Hampton request. “The Board of Ethics is the adjudicator,” Ferguson said. “When a judge says there is no jurisdiction, that effectively ends the matter.
* Republican calls Madigan investigation conflict of interest: Deputy Majority Leader Lou Lang (D- Skokie), one of Madigan’s most loyal allies, says McConnaughay’s argument seems politically motivated and illogical. “The purpose of the ethics commission is to externally take a look at what’s going on in our system, whether it be staff or members and so there would be an inherent conflict in any claim made under that test and I just don’t think that’s appropriate,” says Lang. Lang says the commission is assessing rules internally but welcomes legislative changes if need be.
* Two anti-sex harassment bills go to Rauner’s desk: House Bill 4242 would require local governments and school districts to make public within 72 hours the name of any employee accepting a severance payment due to being accused of sexual harassment within 72 hours, unless there is a confidentiality clause in that employee’s contract. HB 4243 prohibits state legislators from using public money to pay off victims of harassment to keep quiet. Despite wide support in committee and in both houses of the legislature, the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois opposes HB 4242. … [Ben Ruddell, an attorney with the ACLU] said the public posting requirement creates a “pseudo-sex offender registry,” which could lead to further invasions of privacy for government employees.
* JB Pritzker spoke to the Evanston chapter of Action for a Better Tomorrow this week and said something for the first time…
During the Q&A portion of the event, Pritzker said he would get rid of gerrymandering and also does not support public financing of statewide campaigns
Pritzker has previously referred to his support for publicly financed judicial races, but never specifically ruled out statewide campaigns until now.
* But that’s not all Pritzker said on the topic. From a tracker video..
I don’t like the bill that I saw that’s in Springfield today.
That would be Sen. Daniel Biss’ bill to set up a publicly funded small donor matching system for all campaigns. That would also be the same Sen. Biss who recently endorsed Pritzker, but first wanted the nominee to come around on this issue.
We’ve got to work on trying to limit campaign contributions across the board, but I worry that since we’re going to have trouble convincing the vast majority of people in the state of Illinois that we should spend millions and millions of dollars on one race, for example, that that’s going to be very hard to do at a statewide level. I think for local races, for judicial races, even for state Rep and state Senate races, I think it’s very practical to do. I just have trouble at the statewide level — think about how much money is going to be spent in this attorney general’s race.
* I asked Biss about Pritzker’s opposition to publicly financed statewide campaigns and he chose to look on the bright side…
I think if we passed a law that was very similar to SB1424’s provisions for the GA that would be a huge step forward.
Look, I support SB1424. I disagree with him about the statewides. But I think what he’s proposing is real and would matter. It’s not window dressing.
Well, Daniel pretty much killed my “mess with JB” post, but whatevs. I guess he really is with Team JB now.
* The questions were pretty interesting, though. Biss may be on board, but some members of the audience clearly weren’t buying in…
Illinois Attorney General Candidate Erika Harold today announced sweeping recommendations to address the Democratic majority in the General Assembly’s failure to confront the #MeToo movement.
“The failure by Speaker Madigan, Senator Kwame Raoul and the Democratic majority in the General Assembly to enact meaningful reform of the investigation and complaint resolution process is a failure of leadership,” Harold said. “Women deserve real reform, and as Illinois’ Attorney General, I will demand no less.” […]
Erika Harold recommends the following changes:
* the law governing the Legislative Inspector General’s position should be amended to provide for an investigation that is independent of the General Assembly’s influence.
* the ethics commission should be expanded to include members of the public, so that legislators will be accountable not just to their colleagues in Springfield but also to their constituents.
* if the ethics commission finds evidence that a legislator engaged in sexual harassment, retaliation or other misconduct, then a Complaint should be filed with the independent Illinois Courts Commission, as opposed to being resolved by the ethics commission.
* the Illinois Courts Commission should be empowered to censure, fine or recommend for removal members of the legislature found guilty of sexual harassment or other misconduct.
* the perpetrator’s identity should be made public, as the public is entitled to know which legislators abuse their power and position.
* The Question: Which of these recommendations could you support and which would you oppose and why?
* David Risley, the director of criminal justice and public safety policy for the governor’s office, testified in a House committee hearing today and made a surprising offer…
Office of @GovRauner just committed to signing & @WillGuzzardi offered to sponsor standalone bill imposing a 72-hour waiting period on purchase of ALL guns. Waiting periods are evidence-based. We would be happy to work with the Gov & General Assembly to make it happen! #twill
Rep. Will Guzzardi: So what I’m asking you is to commit on behalf of the Governor’s office to enact a clean bill on a waiting period that the Governor’s office – on whose behalf you speak – admits will save the lives of Illinoisans without hanging it up on all these other provisions which are obviously very controversial. Is that a commitment that the Governor’s office can make to us today?”
David Risley: “Let me put it this way, we’ve already prepared that bill. We would hope that it would reach the Governor’s desk with exactly the language that he has proposed in the amendatory veto, without limiting it as it was in the original bill to a certain class of firearms, of long guns. The Governor wants to extend it to all firearms and it that bill reaches his desk I would fully expect he would sign his own bill.”
Rep. Will Guzzardi: “You say ‘that bill.’ You mean a standalone bill on a waiting period?”
David Risley: “Right, right. Exactly.”
Rep. Will Guzzardi: “That’s a bill that the Governor’s office would commit to signing?”
I asked the governor’s office for comment at 1 o’clock this afternoon. I’ll let you know what they say if I do hear back.
*** UPDATE *** From the governor’s office…
The governor has presented a comprehensive public safety package to the General Assembly. We urge the General Assembly to consider this package that gets to the heart of critical public safety issues including a standard 72-hour waiting period for all gun sales, banning bump stocks, keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals, holding judges and prosecutors accountable for sentencing, freeing up local revenue to hire school resource officers and the death penalty for mass murderers and those who would kill law enforcement officers. A motion to accept the Governor’s changes to House Bill 1468 has been filed by the sponsor. There is a clear opportunity for the House to consider the package in its entirety.
* Lt. Gov. Evelyn Sanguinetti appeared on a Bloomington-Normal radio station this morning to talk about Speaker Madigan and Kelly Cassidy. In case you haven’t been paying attention, Rep. Kelly Cassidy went public Monday with her story of being forced to resign from her part-time job in the Cook County Sheriff’s Office due to pressure from Madigan allies after she called for an independent investigation of sexual harassment within the state’s Democratic party organization, which Madigan also heads.
But either Sanguinetti has her signals crossed on who is doing the harassing, or perhaps she misspoke and meant something else, but she ended up calling Madigan the “harasser-in-chief”…
Host: Well, Madigan has a way of going after folks who make him look a little less than comfortable. I guess he feels that since he’s Illinois’ candy man, he can do it.
Sanguinetti: Absolutely, absolutely. And I have a daughter who just turned 18 and I’m always telling her to stand up for her rights and if you see something, you’ve got to say something. Look at what happened to Kelly Cassidy. What message does this send to our young ladies out there? You see something, you say something and what — you get fired? You get retaliated against? By the top harasser-in-chief. So we shouldn’t stand up for this. This should give you pause, this should give everyone pause.
For whatever reason, Sanguinetti’s “harasser-in-chief” comment was clipped out of the highlight reel distributed by the Rauner campaign this morning.
* Sanguinetti also echoed calls today for an independent investigator — other than Legislative Inspector General Julie Porter — to look into the Cassidy matter. As you’ll remember from yesterday, Sen. Melinda Bush told me that she and other female senators were planning on asking IG Porter to investigate the situation, but Speaker Madigan beat the senators to the punch and asked Porter to investigate the matter himself.
Sen. Karen McConnaughay (R-St. Charles) has been the loudest voice on this topic since yesterday. She sits on the Legislative Ethics Commission and chatted with reporters earlier…
.@kmcconnaughay33 says the current legislative investigative process is like the “fox watching the henhouse.” She says Madigan’s call to investigate Rep. Cassidy’s claims is an inherent conflict of interest. pic.twitter.com/2JqKAKWEkd
“You can’t say with a straight face that you have an independent process until you take the politics out of it, you take the political entities out of the equation and you give that independent individual the power to do the investigation. Remember, the way it works in Illinois is no Inspector General can go and do an investigation without asking the General Assembly to do so. It’s the fox guarding the henhouse problem that we have in Illinois…”
“As good as Julie Porter might be, if the person who’s responsible for hiring her is the person about to be investigated, then that is a clear conflict of interest. I don’t know how that could be at all complicated or confusing for anyone.”
I’m the communications manager for ProPublica Illinois and I’m writing with a story we wanted to make sure was on your radar. Today’s story is on our website, and also ran at the Sun-Times. This is part of Mick Dumke’s continuing coverage about the activities of the Illinois Policy Institute, which you may recall has been under heavy criticism for issues of transparency and accountability with the nonprofit’s political operations.
Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. I’ve included a summary below and hopefully this may be a fit for a write-up at Capitol Fax.
Best,
Derrick
The Story: Groups connected to the Illinois Policy Institute, the state’s leading conservative think tank, have gained momentum on Chicago’s Northwest Side by organizing against an affordable housing complex. The proposal, supported by 45th Ward Ald. John Arena and State Rep. Robert Martwick, has stirred intense debate about government aid for the poor, racial segregation and housing density.
According to records obtained by ProPublica Illinois reporter Mick Dumke, starting with the 2012 elections, some Illinois Policy Institute leaders began funding campaigns after a series of transactions involving other organizations and political action committees they formed. In 2015 and 2016, the Government Accountability Alliance, which is also led by institute CEO John Tillman, gave more than $3 million total to the Illinois Opportunity Project. The IOP in turn has poured more than $1.7 million into political campaigns and committees across the state, including candidates opposed to the affordable housing complex. Tillman was also on the board of the Illinois Opportunity Project through 2016. (The story infographics help illustrate the money trail.)
The activities of some Illinois Policy Institute leaders have raised questions about accountability and transparency. For example, a report by the Chicago Sun-Times and ProPublica Illinois found that the now-defunct Project Six, touted as an independent and nonpartisan watchdog group, received 98 percent of its initial funding from the Illinois Policy Institute. And following that and similar reports, Congressman Dan Lipinski called for an investigation into IPI.
If you liked Airbnb versus the hotel industry or Uber-Lyft against taxi operators, a similar fight over what rules to apply to car-sharing companies is brewing in Springfield. And it could turn into a beaut, with the future of the transportation business and millions of dollars a year in tax income at stake.
Pending before the House Executive Committee is a bill backed by Enterprise and other traditional car-rental firms that would require emerging car-sharing competitors to follow the same licensing and regulatory rules that they do. The new competitors, such as San Francisco-based Turo, do not own and rent their own vehicles but instead use an app-based system in which travelers lease cars directly from individual car owners, with Turo playing intermediary.
Turo spokesmen argue that the bill, which is scheduled for a committee hearing tomorrow, would “effectively slow or stop Turo’s ability to offer a marketplace to 200,000 Illinois citizens and similar peer-to-peer car sharing companies.”
The company also argues that the 6,600 renters it has in the state, or “hosts” in company jargon, already are at a competitive disadvantage, because unlike Turo, they are exempt from paying the state’s 7.25 percent sales tax on car purchases.
But advocates of the bill say it’s the traditional firms that are losing out because lower-priced upstarts aren’t held to the same disclosure, insurance or consumer protection standards.
* Other bills…
* It’s ‘gut-check time’ for lawmakers on legislation to curb sexual harassment: The sexual harassment omnibus legislation Bush introduced expands the definition of harassment and extends discrimination protections to independent contractors. It would give workers two years, rather than six months, to file charges and sue. It would require reporting of settlements from large public contractors and employers, and prohibit non-disclosure agreements unless the victim wants one. Among other things, it also requires a panic-button system for hotel workers and mandates that anyone who works in youth sports be required to report abuse suspicions to the Department of Children and Family Services.
* New version of Trump tax-cap workaround goes to lawmakers: Under the new version, instead of paying taxes and losing some deductions as per the law enacted by the GOP Congress and President Donald Trump, taxpayers would be allowed to donate to “charitable funds” set up to benefit state and local school districts and municipalities. Donors would get a tax credit worth 90 percent of the donation that would be used to offset their state income or local property tax liability, and because federal law does not limit charitable deductions, the donation would be fully deductible, not capped at $10,000. In an interview, Morrison said she added the 90 percent credit—down from 100 percent in the House bill—with an eye toward the IRS, which some tax experts believe will block a dollar-for-dollar credit as a sale of sorts and not a charitable donation. “We want maximum integrity,” Morrison said.
* Editorial: Sexual assault nurses needed STAT: The bill passed the House 101-0 in April. It would require the 160 Illinois hospitals that treat sexual assault victims to make a SANE available within 90 minutes after a patient arrives in an emergency room. That’s a significant compromise from the not at all unreasonable standard of having a SANE on hand 24/7.
* Wednesday hearing to focus on other Rauner public safety proposals: The Illinois House is set to hear testimony about a slew of measures Gov. Bruce Rauner has raised to enhance public safety, and among them is freeing up money for armed school resource officers. The House heard the governor’s plan Monday to bring back the death penalty for cop killers and mass murderers, but other issues the governor injected in a bill he changed with his amendatory veto are slated for a Wednesday hearing.
* Illinois Lawmakers Consider National Rap Back System: When a new employee is fingerprinted for a job in Illinois, the employer receives a snapshot of their criminal record, and they receive notifications for any future run-ins with the law in the state. But lawmakers are considering a proposal that would also allow employers to be notified of convictions that happen across state lines.
* State Lawmakers Consider “Voices Act” to Help Immigrant Crime Victims: The measure, SB34, doesn’t change any immigration rules, but instead requires Illinois police to more quickly certify that someone is a crime victim. That gives them a special visa so they can stay as long as they cooperate with an investigation.
Illinois’ Springfield-based Fourth District Appellate Court on Tuesday ruled that the State Board of Elections must reconsider issues involving the former campaign fund of state Auditor General Frank Mautino.
Previously, an elections board hearing officer found the former Democratic lawmaker “willfully” violated an order that he provide more information about his legislative committee’s spending — in particular more than $247,000 on fuel and car repairs over a 16-year period and other expenditures from a local bank.
Mautino faced a $5,000 fine, and his fund also was subject to a federal investigation. Mautino declined to testify during the board’s previous hearing process. His attorney contended that Mautino’s campaign committee was dissolved and no longer had records to back up the expenses.
But following an appeal brought by the Liberty Justice Center, the legal arm of the conservative Illinois Policy Institute, the Appellate Court ruled that the State Board of Elections “did not address or issue rulings” on some of the claims made in the complaint to the lack of specificity in Mautino’s campaign finance reports. The court sent the case back for further consideration.
The [Illinois State Board of Elections] initially told the plaintiff, Streator resident David Cooke, to forward his case to prosecutors because they have broader powers to investigate the allegations of improper use of campaign funds.
The Fourth District Appellate Court disagreed, saying that the election authority was the proper venue to address Cooke’s complaint.
“We find Cooke’s [election code] claims, if proved, would establish additional violations separate and apart from the Board’s other findings,” the panel wrote. […]
Mautino’s campaign was fined $5,000 in May for failing to report information during a probe into the spending.
A verdict from the board could mean more fines, but because the campaign committee is defunct, it’s unlikely to pay them.
Approving a new evidence-based funding model for public education last year was the first step in improving Illinois’ long-broken formula. Now the state has to find a way to pay for it.
The Illinois State Board of Education on Wednesday unanimously approved its fiscal year 2019 budget request, seeking nearly twice as much funding from the state – approximately $15.7 billion – in order to help districts across Illinois find equity and meet their adequacy targets.
A group of school superintendents is suing Gov. Bruce Rauner and the State of Illinois seeking more than $7 billion for schools.
Last August, Illinois adopted a new school funding plan. It’s called the “evidence-based model” because it’s calculated using dozens of metrics to determine how much money each district needs to provide kids with a good education. The State Board of Education, known as ISBE, says the total cost would be $7.2 billion. Lawmakers planned to get to that number over time, by appropriating around $350 million per year over the next decade.
But Dan Cox, superintendent of Staunton District 6, says schools that have been starved for cash for years want it now.
“We’re seeking a judgment of $7.2 billion in [fiscal year 20] 19 … to reflect the amount ISBE has always said is the amount required by Article X of the constitution,” Cox says. “We can’t wait for the General Assembly at some future date to appropriate these funds.” […]
Jackie Matthews, spokesperson for the state board, wouldn’t comment on the lawsuit except to say it’s consistent with the board’s budget request.
* Tribune: Madigan under fire again over handling of sexual harassment claims, asks for watchdog investigation: Porter’s contract originally ran through June 30, but it has been extended through the end of the year to provide time for a nationwide search for a replacement.
* Sun-Times: Is the speaker hearing the ‘message’? Or just mouthing the words?: Is Madigan, who turned 76 last month, ready for a full investigation of his own operation? Or is he just going through the motions for political cover?
* SJ-R: Madigan denies retaliating against Democratic lawmaker, calls for investigation: Cassidy said she has had several aides, lobbyists and others come up approach her and thank her for speaking up. She has also found wide support among her colleagues.
* AP: Madigan seeks probe of sexual-harassment retaliation claim: The bill had been assigned to a House Judiciary Committee, on which Cassidy serves as vice chairwoman. Cassidy said her opposition was based on House Democrats’ well-publicized moratorium on enhanced criminal penalties when there’s no evidence they’re effective at discouraging crime.
* WCIA: Madigan denies intimidation allegations: Senator Karen McConnaughay (R-St. Charles), who sits on the Legislative Ethics Commission, says Madigan’s letter represents a conflict of interest since he appointed Porter to the position.
* NBC5: Madigan Pens Letter Responding to Lawmaker’s Claims of Retaliation: Cassidy said she did not link Dart to the retaliation and chose to resign from her position.
* Hinz: Pritzker breaks with Mike Madigan as #MeToo flap deepens
* WTTW: Speaker Madigan Denies Retaliation Claims, Calls for Investigation: But Cassidy says her opposition had no impact on [the legislation]. She also says she believes it was not a conflict of interest to hold both jobs. “That’s something that we worked through quite thoroughly when I was contemplating joining the team there,” Cassidy said. “House counsel was clear that there was no conflict of interest, especially given my history of work on criminal justice reform.”
* Meanwhile, from the ILGOP…
93 days ago, Democratic Party of Illinois Chairman Mike Madigan asked Comptroller Susana Mendoza to serve on the Anti-Harassment, Equality and Access Panel charged with, among other things, investigating the sexual harassment claims against Speaker Madigan’s political organizations.
Over the course of the last 93 days, one of Mendoza’s harassment panel co-chairs resigned, more harassment claims emerged against Madigan’s organization, and now Democratic State Rep. Kelly Cassidy –who publicly criticized Speaker Madigan’s response to claims of harassment—claims she was pushed out of her job with the Cook County Sheriff’s Office because she spoke out against Madigan.
Through these turbulent 93 days, there has been one constant—Mendoza’s silence.
“Multiple women have now come forward with stories of harassment and retaliation by the Madigan organization, yet Susana Mendoza has remained silent—failing to do her job, much less act like a leader in her party. Mendoza’s quick to launch the hyperbolic partisan attack, but when it comes to taking a critical look at her own party leaders and defending her fellow colleagues—Mendoza remains silent. Illinois women simply cannot afford more silence from Mendoza.” said Darlene Senger, Republican candidate for Comptroller.
With yet another potential investigation into harassment and retaliation in Mike Madigan’s political organization, will Mendoza break her silence now?
* And then there’s this…
State Senator Karen McConnaughay (R-St. Charles) joins several other lawmakers in calling for an investigation following the recent allegations made by Rep. Kelly Cassidy, who says she was forced to resign from her part-time job at the Cook County Sheriff’s Office after speaking out against Speaker Mike Madigan’s handling of sexual harassment claims within his political office. McConnaughay says retaliation of this kind, or any kind, needs to be taken very seriously and has no place in the Capitol.
Madigan, himself, has asked for the Legislative Inspector General (LIG) to investigate Cassidy’s allegations; however, Sen. McConnaughay believes the investigation needs to be done independently from the LIG and free from Madigan’s control.
“No inspector general should be handling an investigation regarding allegations made against the person who appoints them,” said McConnaughay. “If the Legislative Inspector General were to be in charge of this investigation, it would be a clear conflict of interest, as Madigan played a significant role in the current LIG’s appointment. The LIG cannot conduct an unbiased investigation when she is investigating the person who appointed her. This investigation must be independent.”
When sexual harassment allegations first came to light about an individual on Madigan’s political staff, Rep. Cassidy was one of few who voiced her opinion on the matter calling for an investigation and a review of sexual harassment policies. Cassidy has since publicly claimed that as a result of her speaking out against the way Madigan handled the situation, she felt forced to resign at the Cook County Sheriff’s Office.
“The only way for these unethical behaviors to stop is if people, like Rep. Cassidy, come forward to tell their story,” said McConnaughay. “Unfortunately, this kind of conduct has been going on for way too long in the Capitol building, and it’s long past time for it to end. Illinois cannot afford this kind of culture to continue. I commend Rep. Cassidy’s bravery to speak up and for being a trailblazer in the effort to end this kind of corruption.”
* And Rep. Kelly Cassidy gets the last word in this post…
In February, I first spoke publicly about the inadequate response to allegations of sexual harassment within Speaker Madigan’s operation. On two occasions since that time, someone loyal to Speaker Madigan has attempted to intimidate me and my part-time employer. After the second occurrence, I knew it wouldn’t stop, and I knew that the only way to ensure that these retaliation efforts cease is to place a spotlight on them.
Having spent my entire adult life advocating for those without power, I have advocated for stronger responses to discrimination at all levels as well as in the private sector. I know that my role in the House affords me a greater degree of safety than many who have long complained about the ways women are treated in Springfield. Since coming forward yesterday, I have been stopped by more women (and men) than I can count, thanking me for speaking up because they don’t feel safe speaking out about their own experiences of intimidation, retaliation, and harassment.
As this story now turns to the inevitable he said/she said and denials, I remain firmly committed to being a steadfast voice for justice and equality, just as I have worked against harassment and discrimination throughout my career. I stand by my story. I did not want to leave the work and the team I loved being a part of, and I certainly did not want to spend the waning days of this session focused on anything other than passing my bills and getting a budget completed.
I am encouraged to see the call for an investigation by the Legislative Inspector General from both the Illinois State Senate Women’s Caucus and Speaker Madigan. Based on the widely reported concerns about the ability of the LIG to operate with true independence, I stand by my original call for a truly independent and outside investigation into this culture that appears to pervade the organizations led by Speaker Madigan.
I am committed to speaking out against retaliation and intimidation, and to doing what I can to change this abusive culture. We can and must do better for all of us.
*** UPDATE *** From the three members of the Democratic Party of Illinois’ anti-harassment panel…
“This is nothing more than desperate politics being played on the part of Darlene Senger and the GOP, shamefully using the stories of brave women who have spoken up against sexual harassment, to change the subject away from her suggestion to pin the blame on Sen. Tammy Duckworth for Governor Rauner’s horrible failure to keep our veterans safe in Quincy. Senger lost all credibility and trust the instant she chose protecting Governor Rauner’s image over safeguarding the lives of veterans and their families.
The work of the Anti-Harassment, Equality and Access Panel is to focus on the future of women in this party, and engage them as it develops guidelines and a framework to eliminate obstacles to their success, such as sexual harassment, and elevate them into positions of leadership, while creating a culture of equity, safety and respect in the workplace.
Independence around this issue is so important to the three of us that we were prepared to step down from our respective positions in the event that the party attempted to appoint a member of its leadership to our panel.
If Darlene Senger and the GOP are truly interested in rooting out sexual harassment and elevating women within their own party, we hope they will follow our lead and adopt our ultimate recommendations for their own party.
What: Gov. Rauner joins public safety and transportation leaders at a ‘Give Them Distance’ awareness event
Where: Illinois State Capitol Building-Press Room, Springfield
Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Note: No additional media availability
So… the governor is going to the Statehouse press room and not taking reporters’ questions? That’s so odd. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before.
*** UPDATE *** Here’s how the governor’s unusual press conference ended. Some folks were not pleased. The old rule was if you came to the Blue Room you couldn’t leave until the reporters said they were finished. Hey, it’s our room, so you abide by our rules. It’s why some people don’t hold these things in the press room…
Many thanks to the fine folks at BlueRoomStream.com for the video clip. If you don’t already subscribe to that service, you should.
