Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Stimulus project focus of Obama visit
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Eric Zorn had never heard of the Statehouse’s agreed bill process until he read a letter to the editor. So, he checked into it…
Q. Is it truly “little-known”?
A. Not in Springfield’s halls of power or among the business and labor interests that participate in it. When I ran portions of Gallo’s letter by an assortment of legislators, aides and interest-group officials, many took issue with the characterization. After all, they pointed out, the process has been used routinely for some 30 years, mostly to mediate unemployment, worker’s compensation and other issues in which business and labor interests are in conflict.
On the other hand, the term “agreed-bill process” has only appeared in five Tribune news stories about state government in the last quarter century. And when I asked my sources where and when these stakeholder meetings take place and who, exactly, is invited to participate, the answer was usually vague.
Five times in twenty-five years? Wow. I checked my subscriber archives and found 14 exact phrase matches in the past 18 months. But, that’s my thing, writing about stuff that everybody else in the media ignores.
The process has been used for decades to make sure that neither side gets an unfair advantage in any changes to unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation laws. Labor, business and other stakeholders like local governments and doctors and hospitals (in the case of workers’ comp) all effectively have veto power over everybody else’s proposals.
People once thought the process worked well, until the last workers’ comp agreed bill process produced a badly flawed law that skyrocketed costs here. The system was abandoned this year and a bill was run that was hotly opposed by the docs and hospitals and had lukewarm backing by some business and most of labor. But the system is still in place for unemployment insurance. Whether that’ll last is anybody’s guess. The state’s UI system is deep in the red and a fix is gonna be painful.
* The subject came up for Eric because of an effort by AARP to repeal a state law that reduces Social Security and disability retirement checks by half when seniors collect unemployment benefits. Illinois is just one of two states with such a law on the books. But because the item is subject to the agreed bill process, it can’t move on its own…
Repeal advocates say the offset reduces benefits each year for more than 17,000 Illinois residents over age 62. Opponents say that repeal would cost the strapped state unemployment insurance trust fund some $55 million annually and argue that hike would increase costs to business.
The proposed repeal has been introduced in Springfield every year since 2002, but despite bipartisan sponsorship, has never even gotten a vote in committee, much less a full floor debate. Repeal supporters contend that it dies at the whim of unelected advocates operating in the shadowy recesses of the agreed-bill process.
Thoughts?
* Meanwhile, yeesh…
More than three-quarters of Illinois high school graduates aren’t completely ready for college, based on their ACT scores, state results of the college-admission test released Wednesday show.
Only 23 percent of Illinois’ 2011 high school graduating class — public and private — met college readiness standards in all four ACT subjects tested: English, reading, math and science.
The biggest drag on preparedness, data showed, was college-readiness in science. There, only 28 percent of the 2011 Illinois graduating class scored high enough to predict they will probably land a C or better in the typical college freshmen science course in biology, the ACT report indicated.
Among the state’s African-American students, only 6 percent met that same college-ready science bar.
But…
And although Illinois is one of only four states that require all public high school students to take the ACT, its composite is not that far from the national average of 21.1, noted Mary Fergus, spokeswoman for the Illinois State Board of Education.
* Lots of state workers and retirees breathed a sigh of relief yesterday…
A legislative panel has cleared the way for Illinois to extend temporary health insurance coverage for state employees through June 30.
The Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability voted 8-1 Tuesday for the extension.
The state now must negotiate new contracts with health insurance companies.
The temporary contracts were set to expire Sept. 28 and were put in place as litigation over state health insurance plans works its way through the courts.
* This decision took way too long…
A state health planning board has voted to approve Cook County’s controverial plan to close Oak Forest Hospital.
The Illinois Health Facilities and Services Review Board voted 7-1 Tuesday in favor of the proposal. One board member voted present. All three new board members appointed recently by Gov. Pat Quinn voted for the county’s plan.
But the vote included a condition requesting county officials return in one year to update the board on the implementation of their plan to convert the hospital to a regional outpatient center. The board also requested the that the county inform the board if they encounter any difficulty getting other local hospitals to take former Oak Forest patients.
The county now plans to close the hospital by Sept. 1.
* But hospitals are up in arms about this decision…
The Illinois Department of Revenue this morning denied three hospitals — including prominent Prentice Women’s Hospital at Northwestern Memorial — their property tax exemptions, a move that could force the hospitals to shell out millions of dollars a year in taxes.
Edward Hospital in Naperville and downstate Decatur Memorial Hospital also were denied, according to one-page rulings the Revenue Department provided.
A department spokeswoman would not specify why the hospitals were denied, referring to a document that outlined a multiprong test the department uses to decide whether a hospital qualifies for an exemption. The test includes a standard that hospitals must dispense “charity to all who need and apply.”
None of the denied hospitals listed uncompensated charity care on their financial statements as part of their exemption requests, the Revenue Department said. But in other records, Northwestern Memorial reported 1.85%, Edward Hospital 1.04% and Decatur Memorial 0.96% of net patient revenue was spent on charity care, the department said.
Appeals are planned…
Edward and Decatur Memorial officials say they plan a vigorous appeal. Edward Hospital says it provided $77 million in charity care and community programs last year. Decatur Memorial officials say the denial was based on information from 2006 and they can prove the hospital currently meets the criteria for a tax exemption.
In a statement, Northwestern officials say they disagree with the decision and will review their options.
At stake are millions of dollars in tax revenues for local communities.
* And our quote of the day goes to Rep. La Shawn Ford…
“Marijuana is not a gateway to the next hard drug, but the gateway to prison,” says Ford, who represents a district (the Eighth) that stretches from Chicago’s west side into the suburbs.
* Roundup…
* Quinn signs bill allowing mining near southern Illinois state park
* Big toll hike runs into flak
* The money is gone for burying Illinois’ poor’
* Thousands Dropped From Illinois Cares Rx Program
* CTU argues for better – not longer – school days
* Rockford School District teachers may start year without contract
* City to pay $30 million, hire 111 black firefighters
* O’Connell interested in Cook County GOP Chairmanship
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 11:16 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Stimulus project focus of Obama visit
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Finally, we are seeing more brave politicians speak out against this wasteful, asinine war against marijuana. Kudos to Rep. Ford!
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 11:27 am
Both Social Security and Unemployment are what I deem true entitlements because both benefits were earned and (at least partially) paid for. Receiving one should not reduce the other … especially because people who choose to take SS at 62 have already received an approximately 30% cut in that benefit in exchange for receiving it 3 to 5 years early.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 11:51 am
I’d actually heard of it before… in fact the AARP folks had been making noise about their issue and their concern about the process since the spring … but I admit I didn’t understand it that well. And it’s still not clear to me exactly who wields how much power and influence in these “meetings” and what the threshold for consensus is that allows bills to move. Adding my belief that it’s not clear to me that this is even clear to all the members of the General Assembly, judging from some of the conversations I had in preparing this column.
Comment by Eric Zorn Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 12:00 pm
Good thing we can bring in immigrants who have the education needed to handle today’s jobs. My office in downtown Chicago is flooded with Asians who know what they’re doing. But what do we do with the growing number of citizens without sufficient education? The assembly line jobs that once cartered to them with good salaries are gone. And the left-over service industry jobs for the most part do not pay a living wage. Even the military doesn’t want them. Thank you large urban public school systems for the lives you have ruined.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 12:49 pm
With the social security offset issue, one has to wonder who there is representing the interest of the unemployed social secuirty recipient. I understand labor is generally in favor but the unemployed aren’t usually paying much in the way of dues. Even if you assume labor is doing it, I question whether it will ever become a priority for them over the many other issues they deal with year to year.
Comment by Dave V Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 1:51 pm
Four Illinois legislators agree that it’s ok to discriminate against older workers: Senators Terry Link and John Jones and Representatives Frank Mautino and Ed Sullivan. We need your help to change their minds and start being fair.
These men have been appointed to the agreed bill process this year. They are deciding right now — August 2011 — if the unfair Social Security offset provision will finally be repealed. They tell everyone who contacts them and asks them to support repeal of the Social Security offset law that “the state is broke.” They are saying that’s it’s ok for Illinois to continue to steal money from older people.
Illinois and Louisiana are the ONLY states in the union that have not repealed this unfair law. Every other state and territory repealed it because it clearly discriminates against senior workers.
Under the provision, unemployment payments are severely reduced if the recipient also receives Social Security. In fact, because of this unfair provision, many older workers in Illinois receive zero in unemployment benefits. Nothing. Nada.
That’s just plain wrong. Our employers paid the full amount of employment tax for each of us. They didn’t pay less because we collect Social Security. The state is stealing our unemployment benefits because we’re old. The Social Security offset provision needs to be repealed.
The provision allows Illinois to keep 1.5 percent of the money it pays out in unemployment – 1.5 percent — money that has already been paid in to help eligible older workers get through a tough patch.
This year is the first time that legislators have been included in the agreed bill process discussions about repealing the Social Security offset provision. Since 2002 when repeal legislation was first introduced in Illinois, business lobbyists — with agreement from labor lobbyists — killed it privately. Legislators were spared the public embarrassment of discriminating against seniors.
This year the resistance to repeal continues to come from business lobbyists. They control a huge amount of contribution money. “The state is broke,” which is true, is straight out of the business lobbyists’ playbook. They also threaten that repeal will cause the employment tax to go up. That is a deliberate lie. The employment tax remained exactly the same in every state and territory that repealed the offset provision.
Please help. If you need contact information for these four legislators, contact me at repeal@att.net. Tell them it’s wrong to discriminate against 17,000 Illinois residents simply because they’re old. Tell them to allow House Bill 96 out of the agreed bill process. Tell them you expect them to support House Bill 96 and Senate Bill 144 and repeal the unfair Social Security offset provision. Tell them a lawsuit will be a lot more expensive than repeal.
Comment by Nancy Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 1:51 pm
So Eric,
You’re just finding out now how clueless the Trib is about state government? How long have you worked there?
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 3:36 pm
I grew up in Naperville and never realized Edward Hospital was a “non-profit”. After seeing the cardiac section a number of times when my Mom was a patient, I’m glad to see their property tax exemption was revoked. There are 5 star hotels who have don’t have as nice rooms. Can’t speak to the situation for the other two hospitals, but I’m glad someone is finally looking at this issue.
Comment by formerGOPer Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 3:37 pm
The agreed bill process allows leadership to pawn off tough decisions to a non elected, non representational group of unknown individuals. Even though now there are legislators who are involved in the final decision, the process creates a “super committee” instead of a regular assignment to a standing committee. The committee should hear the bill, not the gang of four.
Comment by Tom Joad Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 5:05 pm
Anyone who has taken a seat in the gallery of the House or Senate or been to a committee hearing has heard a legislator say these word in support of their bill: “This is an agreed bill.” I am in Springfield to lobby exactly one day each year and I have heard the phrase countless times, often followed by a question about who agreed and an explanation of the parties at the table. For Zorn to not know indicates he is not paying attention.
With respect to criticism, it looks like good government to me. Should bills be written by legislators with limited knowledge of the subject or should they include stakeholders in the process? And, by getting the stakeholders to sit down at a table and agree on the language ensures bills with broad support.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 7:19 pm
The Trib’s lack of coverage regarding the agreed bill process illustrates it’s complete ineptitude in substantive political analysis.
Comment by Nice kid Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 8:21 pm
“Finally, we are seeing more brave politicians speak out against this wasteful, asinine war against marijuana. Kudos to Rep. Ford!”
+1 Prohibition does not work. Prohibition does not work.
Comment by wishbone Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 8:46 pm
@Bill — I reject your summary conclusion on every level and challenge the inference that you’ve drawn. Take a few steps away from people who don’t eat, breathe and sleep state government and politics and ask them what they think it means, exactly, when an “agreed-bill” is introduced? Who agrees? At what stage of the process does this agreement take place? Who does and doesn’t have a seat at the table and who decides? I’ll wager you’ll get a lot of blank looks and wild-ass guesses.
So to conclude from our paper’s infrequent use of this bit of poorly understood legislative jargon that the Trib is “clueless” about state government is wildly unfair (The Sun-Times has used the term in only one news story the in Nexis archives; the Daily Herald has never used it, per Nexis)
@PotCallingKettle– I cheerfully admit to not understanding the fine points of how the agreed-bill process actually works. The GA isn’t my beat and when I do write columns about legislation it tends to be legislation that is hotly and publicly disputed. It would have been simple enough to have cast this column as “here’s what I know about the agreed-bill process that most of your average citizens don’t,” but for things like this I *am* an average citizen and so choose to write in that voice. Even as I anticipate the snotty and superior retorts.
Maybe I deserve it, but don’t use me to pick on my colleagues.
Comment by Eric Zorn Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 9:00 pm
While I generally agree with the first part of Tom Joad’s post, I have to admit there are instances where the agreed bill process is beneficial; it forces opposing interests to hash it out, sometimes unearthing overlooked and important information. But the process is also limited. After threading through the narrow and conflicting paths of self-interest, sometimes the best thing you can say about an agreed bill is that it offends no one, it produces only what competing interest groups find agreeable, meaning the result isn’t necessarily in the public interest, much less optimal (or factual or sensible or . . . ). And getting a seat at the table? Not easy. Especially if you are the PAC-less public. Btw, agreed bill process is not limited to unemployment and workers’ comp bills.
Comment by Indeedy Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 9:51 pm
What’s the mystery about the agreed-bill process? It’s “agreed” because the vote-counters on both sides of the aisle know how to count. You don’t have to be an insider to understand that.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 10:28 pm
Wordslinger, I think that’s a roll call.
Comment by Indeedy Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 11:50 pm
Ummm … most people care about results from government not the process.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Aug 18, 11 @ 8:30 am
I’m surprised that Prentice got it’s non profit status revoked. for years I’ve been hearing from a friend who is an obgyn at Prentice about how many cases are diverted from U. of C. that will pushes patients not of high dollar means off on NW. How does a hospital system which actually has a level one trauma unit, which serves all those lakefront fest goers who suffer mishaps, lose the status? and what is the actual standard that must be met for the hospitals? from what I heard on Chicago Tonight last night there is no standard. set some standards! and what about medicare and medicaid patient service?
Comment by amalia Thursday, Aug 18, 11 @ 8:58 am
While we await Capt Fax’s recovery from another day/nite of State Fair Silly Sauce…let’s have poll….who besides us get a headache when thin skinned Eric Zorn “learns” something and when he defends his mope coworkers by comparing them with a another group of mopes?
O.K. hands down
Hey Eric if you really want to learn something let’s try to get to the bottom of the Blagoof/Wrigley Scandal and ESOP fraud……tell us why the Tribbies did not run off to the USA as soon as Blagoof pitched his criminal ideas?
WHy just keep coming back?
Comment by CircularfiringSquad Thursday, Aug 18, 11 @ 9:13 am
In a nation where we’ve spent the last year arguing about not taxing Americans and corporations to death – I find it hard to believe that the Illinois legislature did not hear this bill and pass it. The Unemployment Offset is a silent tax on senior citizens and a shameful attack on a population left most vulnerable by our ongoing economic recession. To sit behind closed doors and determine that democracy cannot see the light of day is an assault on the people of Illinois for which the Illinois Assembly should be held accountable (at the polls) for not allowing this critical bill to be heard and openly debated. Pastor Martin Niemöller is famous for his poem, And then they came for me … we all need to speak up regardless of our ages – the truth is, if you don’t, eventually they’ll come for you.
Comment by Sunshine Thursday, Aug 18, 11 @ 9:25 am
@Pot Calling kettle When they say this is an agreed bill in committee it does not always refer to the process that is the subject of this article. They often say that after there has been some negotiation between two parties that have taken opposing sides in previous committees or had some history of opposition in the past(usually in an open hearing). The subject of this story had to do with the process that is very entrenched and has the power to completely block legislation affecting workers comp and Unemployment from ever getting an open hearing.
Comment by Dave V Thursday, Aug 18, 11 @ 9:50 am
@Tom Joad - I wholeheartedly agree with you.
@Pot calling kettle and @Indeedy - I agree with you that the phrase “agreed bill” is quite common around the Capitol. In fact, I’ll go further and say that every legislator prefers to have an agreed bill when they present their bills in committee and definitely on the floor. Opposing interests are always free to meet to try to hash out a deal. However, in most cases, legislators are allowed to bring their bill to committee for a vote even if they don’t have a bill that all interested parties agree to. If they don’t, it just creates a legislative/lobbying battle; the fate of which lies in the final votes of the legislative members.
The issue that Eric Zorn brings to light is quite different. The “agreed bill process” is exactly as he describes it. Bills that affect unemployment and worker’s compensation have a rock placed on them from the start, and they are turned over to the “agreed bill committee” that is comprised of those that Eric Zorn mentioned. If they can’t come to agreement on a bill, the “committee” (for lack of a better word, since it is not official) doesn’t give permission to the bill sponsor to move the bill, and the sponsor isn’t allowed to call their bill and have a vote in committee.
Comment by Mountain man Thursday, Aug 18, 11 @ 10:04 am
The agreed bill process was established in 1982 with a handshake between Speaker Madigan and then Governor Thompson. It is a subgroup within the Rules Committee of the House set up to decide which unemployment insurance and workers comp bills will be allowed out of Rules. Speaker Madigan and lobbyists from business and labor control the process. Almost no legislators really know what the agreed bill process is. They use the term without any knowledge. Trust me on this one. I think they might think it’s some sort of coordinating committee that works out the wrinkles and makes bills more palatable. It is NOT that. Tom Joad’s discription above is accurate. The process was set up to spare legislators from having to make hard decisions, avoid embarrassing public disclosures about how they voted on unemployment insurance and workers comp bills, avoid floor fights, and protect their contributions from business and labor. Because of the dust-up around the social security offset provision repeal effort, some of the legislators may finally have a little more knowledge about the agreed bill process now. The business lobbyist actually said in a Senate subject matter hearing that the agreed bill process was a statute (it isn’t) that has been around since the beginning of time (it hasn’t). I leapt to my feet, not easy at my age, and challenged him. I told the truth. He fumed. I believe the Speaker and his best friends keep legislators uninformed about the agreed bill process on purpose. It is part of his infantilizing of the legislators and how he maintains control.
Comment by Nancy Thursday, Aug 18, 11 @ 4:20 pm
In addition, I myself personally have been trying to get journalists, including Capitol Fax, interested in exposing and clarifying the agreed bill process for two years. I personally made the rounds of the media offices in the state house. I have been sending emails and notices journalists who cover retirement, social security and state government issues. Eric Zorn was the ONLY person who showed any interest after being repeatedly nagged by older workers who were having their unemployment payments reduced — some to zero — because of the social security offset provision.
Comment by Nancy Thursday, Aug 18, 11 @ 4:26 pm
I also need to say that I and my fellow victims of the Social Security offset provision — which only Illinois and Louisiana still enact — are grateful to Eric Zorn for shedding some light on the agreed bill process. I believe that cheating older workers out of our full unemployment benefits was an unintended consequence of the agreed bill process. I don’t think Speaker Madigan meant to cheat us. I believe he just wanted to maintain his control. Senior workers were collateral damage and he didn’t even know about it.
Comment by Nancy Thursday, Aug 18, 11 @ 4:48 pm
As a senior citizen who lost their job last October,I had no idea of this law until I applied for unemployment. I was just 66 when this happened and was awaiting my first SS check. I was planning to work until I sold my house so this was a real setback.
I cannot see what social security has do with unemployment. SS is a federal program for which we have worked all our lives to receive but unemployment benefits is something our employers paid in to as insurance. It seems that we are punished because we receive SS. Also the amount calculated by subtracting half of weekly social security from the unemployment allotment is unbelievably low. I receive about 1/4 of my calculated unemployment benefit. I hope that there is enough publicity about this to be able to repeal this law.
Comment by nite owl Thursday, Aug 18, 11 @ 7:51 pm
Once again, those who need it most are denied benefits. Social Security should not affect payments for unemployment, disability or anything else that a worker is entitled to. After all, we have paid into Social Security our whole working life. This is not a “gift”. Let’s get this taken off the books and join the rest of the enlightened world.
Comment by Pat Friday, Aug 19, 11 @ 10:21 am
I agree with Pat’s entry above. we the unemployed should not suffer any Offsetting of our Unemployment benefits. we paid into our Social Security. we worked hard. we should NOT be penalized on Unemployment. So–Repeal the Offsetting now!
Comment by walt1948 Friday, Aug 19, 11 @ 10:48 am
When I tried to draw unemployment while on social security, the only thing I got was $50 every 2 weeks from Obamas stimulus package. By the time they deducted unemployment based on what I was getting on social security, I got nothing, notta, big fat zero. I worked hard all my life to get social security only to find the great & wise politicians of Illinois think they know better. The voters of Illinois need to remember things like this when they vote
Comment by Gary Friday, Aug 19, 11 @ 3:18 pm
I get $1245 a month from SS. Not enough to live on, so I go to work. I work in constuction. I get laid off. Thought I would get help from unemployment benefits, but find out I am penalized for collecting my SS.
Mr Link,Mr Jones, Mr Mautino and Mr Sullivan, please do the right thing and repeal the offset law.
Comment by Tom Friday, Aug 19, 11 @ 3:21 pm
Let’s talk reality. I personally know of 6 seniors laid off from a small Central Illinos hospital, filed for social security, some got as little as $750./month, filed for unempl comp, was shocked to learn they were going to take half away from them. None have ever received a dime of unemployment in their entire lives, and had worked since they were 16. That is like 45 years. Tell me that is right. Way to go, Illinois Legislators. I hope you feel comfortable with non-elected individuals making the hard decisions for you. That’s what the “Agreed bill process” is designed for. The leadership loves it and until they change, the agreed bill process will be a part of Illinois’ corrupt government.
Comment by Reality Tuesday, Aug 30, 11 @ 9:03 am