Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: This just in… McCarter issues another, rather weird statement
Posted in:
* Chicago is cutting school spending…
Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Chicago Public Schools chief Jean-Claude Brizard on Thursday announced $75 million in cuts to the school district’s central office and hinted that the state and the Chicago Teachers Union should do the same.
“We need to make those cuts, but it makes a statement as powerful as the money about where you set the priorities,” Emanuel said. “Everybody has to have some skin in the game to make the changes necessary.” […]
“The fact that there is $75 million in achievable savings in administration and bureaucracy underscores the need for more transparency about CPS spending,” Lewis said. “The citizens of Chicago need to see every line of school spending—how much is spent, on what and to whom.”
Trouble is, the new state budget approved by the General Assembly cuts Chicago schools by $77 million. So, Chicago didn’t even tread water with yesterday’s announcement.
* And speaking of late payments…
A day after Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle blamed him for the county health and hospital system’s financial woes, Gov. Pat Quinn in Chicago Thursday steered clear of any commitment to fork over some $38 million in Medicaid reimbursements.
Preckwinkle said she was “disappointed” in the governor’s response to her requests for Medicaid reimbursements, money desperately needed against the county health and hospital system’s projected shortfall of $40 million in the first five months of the year.
“Here’s what we’re trying to do, on the 30th of this month is a deadline for us to get enhanced Medicaid match (money) from Washington. We can get more money from the federal government for our healthcare,” the governor told reporters.
“We have to focus on that, it’s worth about $100, $200 million. That’s what we have to focus on,” said Quinn.
Asked when the county might see the money, the governor walked away, saying: “Pretty soon. OK. Thank you.”
* The budget news is not good for almost everyone…
Education and human services, along with the workers who deliver them, take the biggest hit in the state budget just approved by Illinois lawmakers.
Groups that provide services for the state will feel the pinch, too. Legislators took no steps to catch up on more than $6 billion in overdue bills from small businesses, charities and local agencies.
Lawmakers insist they had no choice but to rein in spending. Anything else would have deepened a budget hole that state government has been trying to escape for years now. […]
The University of Illinois, for instance, loses all $40 million of the money set aside for contractual services. The Corrections Department and its overcrowded prisons lose $4.5 million for personnel.
The state’s key social services agencies, the Department of Human Services and the Department of Healthcare and Family Services, lose a combined $227 million for personnel and contracts, or almost one-third of their total.
* Well, not everybody…
Regional superintendents of education expressed relief that, for now, funding for their offices would not be cut out of the state’s budget.
The General Assembly sent Gov. Pat Quinn a budget package Tuesday night that keeps most of the offices’ funding with a $11.4 million appropriation. Quinn’s original budget proposal had suggested eliminating the money.
* Mayors were spared as well…
Although local government officials have been fearing the move for more than a year, Illinois legislators do not plan to reduce the amount of income tax revenue the state shares with municipalities like the cities of Champaign and Urbana.
The budget proposal they sent to Gov. Pat Quinn this week maintains that disbursement, which local officials say keeps them from looking for even deeper budget cuts than they have already made.
“It’s good news,” said Champaign Finance Director Richard Schnuer. “Our budget was based on receiving revenues under current legislation.”
* Related and a roundup…
* Charter school fights teacher organizing—and “public school” label
* Illinois slow to launch new aid program for delinquent homeowners - Federal government provided $445.7 million last year - ‘It takes time to put it on the street properly,’ state official says
* Editorial: Don’t alter new state bidding process
* ‘Tier 1′ status will allow state workers to keep Clinic doctors
* State keeps public notices requirement but cuts costs to cities and schools
* Changes to records law won’t change much locally
* Quinn makes hospital board appointments after Preckwinkle criticism
* Editorial: Welcome, newbies!
* Taylorville officials willing to wait a little longer on Tenaska
* Workers’ comp bill: businesses gain, doctors lose
* Workers Comp ‘Reform’ in Illinois Aims to Curb Alleged Abuses
* Editorial: Share costs of smart grid
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 10:30 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: This just in… McCarter issues another, rather weird statement
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Who in the General Assembly defends the “Regional superintendents of education,” and why? I’m genuinely geniounly curious.
Comment by GoldCoastConservative Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 10:49 am
–Education and human services, along with the workers who deliver them, take the biggest hit in the state budget just approved by Illinois lawmakers.–
To paraphrase Willie Sutton, that’s where the money is.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 11:01 am
As much as everyone likes to bash them, ROE’s perform duties that no one else does. If they’re dissolved, someone has to do what they do. ISBE would complain that they can’t without additional money. And, locals bristle at the state stepping in and telling them what to do - even if ISBE were given an additional appropriation, the complaint would be leveled that local control is being lost.
I don’t know what the proper course of action is, but ROE’s aren’t as “do nothing” as popular wisdom suggests. That’s why every time someone suggests getting rid of them, it quietly fades away after everyone is reminded of what they do.
And, no, I don’t work for an ROE.
Comment by TwoFeetThick Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 11:58 am
I served on an advisory board for our ROE for ten years. During that time the ISBE budget cuts caused them to turn over more of their former duties to the ROEs. There are grants that ROEs supervise in lieu of the ISBE sending someone to visit the schools. Our ROE conducted workshops on standards-aligned curriculum development, trained substitute teachers who did not have an education degree, and worked on adult literacy such as ESL learners, etc.
Our ROE used to conduct an annual teacher institute drawing in a well-known main speaker and breakout sessions by subject or grade level. Those are long gone due to budget cuts as well as many other workshops they sponsored during the school year.
Comment by Nearly Normal Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 12:20 pm
Why not keep the ROEs and reduce the ISBE to establishing state standards? The ISBE can get out of the rest of the education game, devolve its monetary responsibilities to the GA/ROEs and have a tiny footprint.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 2:06 pm
How about we stop all unfunded mandates from the feds and/or state down to local districts. If a govt agency issues a mandate without the money, the mandate does not have to be adhered to.
Comment by DRB Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 2:34 pm
=== Everybody has to have some skin in the game ===
Unless I’m mistaken, Supt. Brizard’s salary still hasn’t been made public.
I’d like to see how much of that salary he’s willing to give back and what salary cuts are happening at CPS administration before we talk about everybody having skin in the game.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 2:45 pm
- DRB - Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 2:34 pm:
“How about we stop all unfunded mandates from the feds and/or state down to local districts. If a govt agency issues a mandate without the money, the mandate does not have to be adhered to.”
Legal Scholars:
Has this issue ever been litigated (non-compliance of an unfunded mandate), because DRB has a brilliant idea.
Short of US Constitutional requirements, can a State pass a law to do that to the Feds, and similarly can a local government entity pass an ordinance to the State?
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 2:50 pm
@Cincinattus -
Public schools cannot refuse to follow state law without risking their certification and the state funding they do receive.
Moreover, why would we want to say that any school district could refuse to have operable fire alarms for ANY reason?
The state has given the school districts the power to levy property taxes. If the ‘mandates’ are unfunded, its because school districts refuse to use available tools fund them.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 3:04 pm
Cincy,
A State Constitution will supercede local government ordinances. And the State cannot nullify federal law because of Supreme Court precedents interpreting the Supremacy Clause.
While a very tiny handful of federal laws have been successfully challenged in court on 10th amendment grounds (one example is the feds being ruled unconstitutional for requiring local law enforcement to conduct background checks to enforce the Brady Bill), typically the feds get away with any “unfunded mandates” they pass because there will be some funds involved that the state will want to accept and the feds are allowed to place strings attached to those funds as a condition of the state receiving them. (I.e. the road fund requiring states to have 21 as a the drinking age)
I mean, say a local public school wanted to opt out of No Child Left Behind because the program wasn’t fully funded and was considered an unfunded mandate. Well, that would be allowed and the local school could opt out of complying with No Child Left Behind testing/reporting requirements, but then they couldn’t have access to ANY federal education dollars and would probably also be cut off from state aid for the state having received federal education dollars.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 3:23 pm
YDD,
I’m slow thinking today. Can you give me an example of an unfunded mandate currently being imposed by one level of government to another, here in Illinois. I want to use it to wrap my thinking around. Education would be the best example, I guess.
Your point about the ability of the schools to tax is a good one, but can one level of government dictate that a tax be forced on a second level to fund the efforts of the first?
Abstractly, it seems just plain wrong, and possibly unconstitutional to do it. I can see parallels to this unfunded mandate thing to the requirements to buy health insurance that is now being litigated in the Federal courts, understanding that there are many individual protections in the Constitution that don’t have near equivalents to units of government.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 3:23 pm
HGF,
Many thanks. Very clearly explained.
Understanding that, could a local school district opt out of the mandated programs the state imposes, giving up its state funding at the same time.
Hers a tougher question (I would understand if you don’t know the answer, its esoteric.), is state certification of schools tied up with the money allocated by the state?
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 3:27 pm
School districts do not have the power to levy property taxes. Neither should local districts be forced to pay for state issued mandates when the disparity between property tax bases is so high. While we’re at it, let’s get rid of NCLB, the largest, most underfunded of mandates ever to become law. Also, the most unsuccessful.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 3:28 pm
“I don’t know what the proper course of action is, but ROE’s aren’t as “do nothing” as popular wisdom suggests. That’s why every time someone suggests getting rid of them, it quietly fades away after everyone is reminded of what they do.”
Joking aside, what exactly is that? If Nearly Normal’s post is representative of their functions, I would expect there to be zero impact from dissolving them entirely.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 3:34 pm
===could a local school district opt out of the mandated programs the state imposes===
No, and they shouldn’t, either. The state constitution gives power to the GA to create local governments. They cannot tax without state authority, they cannot even operate without state authority.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jun 3, 11 @ 4:28 pm