Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Posted in:
* Press release…
The St. Clair County Circuit Court has dismissed the Pay Now Illinois coalition suit against Gov. Bruce Rauner and state agencies. Circuit Judge Robert P. LeChien cited the precedence established in the June 15 dismissal of a separate Pay Now Illinois suit by the Illinois Appellate Court. The St. Clair decision is attached.
A statement from Pay Now Illinois Chair Andrea Durbin…
“We obviously are disappointed by the decision in St. Clair County, and are considering our options. All along, we’ve sought to determine what legal options there are to enforce contracts under the law and to ensure that social and human service organizations get paid for the work they are doing on behalf of the people of Illinois. In our continuing efforts to ensure that everyone gets paid, we have requested an extension of the deadline to appeal the dismissal of our original suit to the Illinois Supreme Court.”
“As we look ahead, we are reviewing our next steps, including legislation, to make sure this doesn’t happen again – that anyone who enters into a contract has the right to get paid in a reasonable time period.”
The decision is here.
* Check out this kinda tortured logic from the judge on why this case differs from paying state workers without an appropriation…
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jul 20, 17 @ 4:08 pm
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Fake Diana Rauner, President of a Social Service organization is thrilled, yet saddened, but buoyed by this decision.
Fake Diana Rauner will be the life of every cocktail party thru the weekend.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 20, 17 @ 4:17 pm
== kinda tortured logic from the judge==
That’s what he’s known for
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 20, 17 @ 4:22 pm
By that logic, wouldn’t the General Assembly be in violation of violating the AFSCME contract that provided raises that were never appropriated?
Comment by Dirty Red Thursday, Jul 20, 17 @ 4:25 pm
I would take that multi-year argument partially apart. Most of those service contracts, if not explicitly multi-year to begin with, have options to extend for multiple years. I will concede the appropriations are FY bound (except when the GA explicitly reaches back to a previous FY). A lot of torturous hair splitting.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 20, 17 @ 4:25 pm
The judge establishes very dangerous criteria for how a plaintiff could be successful in a future case. They would have a better chance in this case if they engaged in as much political activity as unions do?! Absurd and deeply troubling.
Comment by Judgment Thursday, Jul 20, 17 @ 4:25 pm
It’s even more tortured than that.
He is referring to State v AFSCME, which ruled that the State is not obligated to cover pay raises in a multi-year collective bargaining agreement absent sufficient appropriations to distinguish providers as to why they should not be paid. What the what?
And union employees should be allowed to get paid because they engage in political activities on a much larger scale than providers. Huh? Is this guy trying to be Bruce Rauner’s poster child for every Metro-East judge?
Comment by Juice Thursday, Jul 20, 17 @ 4:32 pm
That’s some argle-bargle.
What do political alliances, political activities, unions and collective bargaining have to do with the root question of the validity of contracts? Is the judge creating classes of contracts?
It should be noted that non-union, non-collective-bargaining state employees were covered by the previous order and were paid without an appropriation.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 20, 17 @ 4:47 pm
The multi-year vs. single-year status of contracts, if true, provides at least a fig leaf of logic to this ruling.
The bit about public unions deserving to be paid because they engage in political activities more is dangerous nonsense enshrining rent-seeking requirements in government contracting.
By this logic, the state shouldn’t have to pay any of its contractors unless they contribute and/or canvass for politicians/judges to an amount deemed sufficient by government authorities.
Extended further, this logic means the comptroller should prioritize state income tax refunds based on taxpayers that donate to the comptroller.
I hope this holding is overruled on appeal.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, Jul 20, 17 @ 4:47 pm
Right outcome, wrong reasoning. Political activity is a red herring.
The governor signs a contract without authorization and the State has to find the money? No, thank you. It’s useful to blur that line, when budgets are late, but that’s no reason to codify it.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 20, 17 @ 5:01 pm
It isn’t pretty clear that the best way to right the state’s financial ship and 1) prevent the future amassing of unpaid bills and 2) reduce our unfunded pension liability is simple.
The state should stop relying on nonprofit contractors to deliver public services and instead replace them with state employees.
Said state employees would have to be paid on time, AND at the same time under the new pension rules would immediately begin to reduce the backlog.
Anything wrong with that logic RNUG or Anders?
Comment by Juvenal Thursday, Jul 20, 17 @ 5:11 pm
== Anything wrong with that logic RNUG or Anders? ==
Just that it most likely would come out the State more since they tend to get bargain basement prices from the NFP’s. If it was s for profit private contractor, the State would probably break even or maybe save a bit. Hard to say for sure in either case.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 20, 17 @ 6:08 pm
This is so wrong. If the state can’t pay for our services, they should terminate the contract, as it says in our contracts that they will. But they don’t want to terminate the contract. They want us to provide our services and they want to not pay us. So they string us along. And so far, there’s not a judge that sees anything wrong with that.
Comment by CCP Hostage Thursday, Jul 20, 17 @ 7:16 pm
That’s a head scratcher….
Comment by Waffle Fries Thursday, Jul 20, 17 @ 7:22 pm
Someone really needs to this to the U.S. Supreme Court so they can dispense with this non-sense.
Comment by Anon Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 12:35 am
Precedent. Not precedence.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 3:35 am