Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Unclear on the concept
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
AG @LisaforIL Madigan office is reviewing constitutional, procedural issues raised by @GovernorQuinn move to cancel legislators' paychecks.
— Amanda Vinicky (@AmandaVinicky) July 10, 2013
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:34 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Unclear on the concept
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This state is unbelievable. With all the craziness going on she should not have to use her resources for this silliness. It was a childish move by Quinn.
Comment by wow Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:44 pm
Bingo.
What a chance to show independence!
She can spin independence either way: by punishing the GA inaction, or by disagreeing with the Speaker.
Comment by walkinfool Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:45 pm
Win-Win for Lisa…
But of course following the Constitution and the Law will be a nice change of pace with all this speculation on Pension bills, and CCW …
If the Attorney General’s Office rules against the Governor, the Governor can sue, and then the Governor’s Office COULD get outside Counsel to defend? Correct?
Asking, not rhetorical.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:53 pm
I can’t believe it has come to this. Have we not learned anything in the past ten years? We’re still playing silly games like this?
Comment by Just Me Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:08 pm
Not to get too far into the weeds, but the House has 15 days to take up the reduced salary veto (assuming courts don’t order salaries restored on other grounds as discussed). If the House doesn’t vote within 15 days to restore the funding, the reductions become law.
Then I’m guessing they’d have to pass a supplemental, which isn’t the most politically popular thing to do, especially a bill restoring their full salaries, which gives Quinn another headline and another shot at a veto. And as others have pointed out, there seems to be some public support for turning our General Assembly into a gang of volunteers.
I assume either Topinka or Madigan’s legal opinion will focus on diminishment of salary mid-term, but they’ll still need a court to enforce it, and Quinn could theoretically appeal it to stall, but I doubt Quinn will ultimately prevail regardless.
They won’t be volunteers for long, but there are some new potential roadblocks, from a process standpoint, that may come into play.
But if this stays out of the judicial branch, and Madigan doesn’t call it for a vote in 15 days, they might miss some paychecks. Will the Speaker run out the clock just to spite Cullerton? Tick tock.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:24 pm
47th, the 15 day clock starts when the veto is journalized. You need a session day for that.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:48 pm
Ok. Thanks Rich.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 6:14 pm
The AG is appealing a judge’s decision that state employees are owed negotiated wages because the money has not been appropriated. How can she say it is ok to pay legislators if the money has not appropriated?
Quinn hasn’t said he won’t pay them, he has just said that they shouldn’t be paid until they slash pensions. It’s a delay, but not a cut in salary.
Comment by Truthteller Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 6:18 pm
Truth teller
That may be the way PQ is characterizing it but in fact he lacks a mechanism or the authority to restore the vetoed funding. Literally he has zeroed out the funding from the budget he has signed. Only the GA can appropriate or override and that must happen with 15 days of when the AV is filed, assuming the GA is in session. Clearly this was not well thought out in the long term. Typical of the Guv.
However, I agree and share your sense of irony as far as the AG and the back pay issue are concerned. The real fun wil begin when the GA cuts or withholds funding from the guvs budget with the rationale that he has not done his job! Bad precedent to fool with the GA.
Comment by Old and In The Way Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 6:52 pm
Old was that the Univ Pres plan that was supposed to be the deal?
I thought something might be near when Nekritz reacted negatively to this move. Makes me think Quinn did his magic again
Comment by RNUG Fan Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 7:00 pm
what gets decided first, the appeal on concealed carry ? or this new matter?
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 7:06 pm
I’ve always defended Quinn as a decent guy a bit out of his depth. No more. This veto is the definition of petulant. Completely indefensible and childish.
Even Blago never sank this low. This is just awful for Illinois.
Comment by DuPage Dave Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 7:52 pm
Ultimately, with a facade of “official” review by the AG, this development is yet another clear sign that she’s IN (…as in the RACE for Gov). And although not definite, don’t be surprised if she rules aGAINST Pat Quinn to actually then turn around and try to USE such an interpretation/position eventually in her own Campaign against him for his Job (…which is either manipulative of her own current Position as AG in the name of an “Official” review or opinion, and even twisted somewhat, or shrewd, depending how one feels about Lisa)…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 7:58 pm
Quinn is becoming an embarrassment to himself and those who would like to support him. His actions are just providing another distraction from the difficult work that needs to be done. Quinn needs to stop listening to the Tribune and the Civic Committee and seek out some better advisors.
Comment by Ruby Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 8:02 pm
Wow, does this mean she might actually take a postition on something!!
Comment by Rocket Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 8:53 pm
RNUG Fan
I wanted to check a couple of things before commenting or speculating. What I can say with some certainty is that the CC was very much interested in the Univ. Pres. proposal and specifically a couple of components 1) the proposed COLA indexed to inflation (CPI) and its impact 2) the cost shift. Understand that SURS is a comparatively small part of the “problem.” The real impact is with TRS and there was little hard data as to the impact of the reduced COLA on TRS. The fact that the universities would accept or even embrace the cost shift was a bonus but not readily applicable to TRS. Still the total proposal suggested a middle path for compromise within the CC and house members were surprisingly interested. I would also add that the house as a whole in general displayed a disappointing lack of knowledge about the numbers from each of the options. Several were genuinely surprised at the numbers and implications. Nekritz of course knew the numbers such that they had as did Biss of course and you could literally see their discomfort grow, especially Tuesday. Remember that Madigan had to flip two downstate reps to get his bare majority so he would seem to be the most vulnerable in this conference. So much so that he loaded the committee! But Nekritz is not an effective whip and you could see this one slipping!
For PQ’s ‘consequences’ to work he needs the cooperation of the Speaker. Otherwise it’s easier to override than Concealed Carry. The Speaker finds himself in an even match with the President of the Senate and he suddenly finds himself on common ground with the governor. The Speaker wants to solve the pension issue once and for all, no halfway measures. PQ threatened a veto of any halfway reform measure but nobody with a memory believed he would dare carry it out. Certainly the Speaker didn’t. The Speaker may or may not have initiated this extortion but clearly he is supporting it and it suits his purposes so it hardly matters either way. All the Speaker has to do is sit back and let governor Dufus babble on about the “will of the people” and make inappropriate references to the Bible. Can you imagine what the Speaker’s reaction would have been if PQ had done this on any other issue? His budget would have been zeroed out of committee for sure.
The plot gets thicker when JBT actually does her job and questions the legality of this charade. I would bet that Rutherford was there to support JBT or at least the AG suspected he was. This forces the AG’s hand after she tried to dodge this initially but in the end realized she did so at her political peril. Remember recent polls connecting her to the Speaker? In fact if handled correctly this could play to her advantage. The speculation has been that her election to governor would upset the balance of powers between the three branches. That of course is the very issue that PQ had raised with this action. Before I continue I must state that I am not wearing a tin foil hat and I am not suggesting some grand conspiracy by any of the parties but rather something more mundane in origin that simply got away from each of the players.
Anyone who tells you they know how this one is going to turn out is a fool. The only sure loser is PQ. There are no sure winners on this one. In fact the only one who controls their own fate to any degree may be the AG and that is tenuous at best. The next act will open when the AG weights in with an opinion. Does she support the governor and by extension her father and substantiate the claim she is the Speakers pawn? Does she decide against PQ and fire the first primary shot at the Guv as well as rebut the charges that she is in the Speakers pocket? What happens to the pension issue? What about the balance of power between the three branches? What will Cullerton do in response? Tune in tomorrow!
Comment by Old and In The Way Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 9:37 pm
https://www.facebook.com/saveourpensions
Thanks Old fascinating stuff. The U Presidents don’t really represent well anyone but themselves I post this link because all can see the reaction from the fac and staff here. Madigan and Quinn and their my way or the highway could really backfire here. We Shall see . The schools and community colleges can see it will hit property tax payers All QM and Daley and Rauner see are some rich Chicagoans . My tinfoil hat keeps going back to the incredible political misread this is for the democrat party
Comment by RNUG Fan Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 9:58 pm
Old and in the way, Thanks for the insights.
I too was surprised at the lack of understanding by some of the committee on the details of the plans. They are clearly not ready to propose or negotiate a deal. By the way, who elected “Glenn Poshard and the Presidents” to represent me and my pension?
Comment by Makandadawg Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:06 pm
Lisa’s in a spot that sort of reminds me of Michael in Godfather 3, “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me right back in.”
Comment by Scott217 Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:09 pm
Springfield’s Channel 20 news just reported that the governor’s office claims there is a court decision that lends support for his ability to item veto the Solons pay.
I haven’t seen any other reference by him or his staff to such a beneficial court decision. I’ll put my money on the side saying that this would be another of Quinn’s numerous misrepresentations regarding the IV and pension issues.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:26 pm
at least i learned a lot from the comments
Comment by ejhickey Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:30 pm
The real key to all of this may be Cullerton, at least until the AG weighs in. He and Kwame have certainly maintained better that either PQ or the Speaker. While i dont necessarily agree with them 100% I do have a grudging respect for both. The balance of power may well be leaning away from the Speaker.
Comment by Old and In The Way Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:35 pm
Norseman
What is PQ’s record in matters like this? He is rarely correct or even on point! Next to Nekritz he may be one of the weakest legal minds in this tragicomedy! You follow this stuff, any court rulings come to mind?
Comment by Old and In The Way Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:40 pm
Old - The only pertinent ruling I’ve seen relates to the judges cost-of-living increase. As you know, this doesn’t support Quinn’s action.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:55 pm
I’m in court all day tomorrow so I will not be commenting. Needless to say I will be curious as to what transpires over the next few days though! Good night and good luck!
Comment by Old and In The Way Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:55 pm
Truthteller -
the major difference is the separation of powers issue. The governor cannot unilaterally defund the legislative or judicial branches. See jorgenson v. Blagojevich (2004) (judges Cola case).
Comment by Tasty Grouper Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 11:12 pm
The Executive can not force the legislative branch to act buy withholding pay. But apparently 96 percent of Illinois residents forgot what they were taught in hig school about the separation of powers because polling on the news last night those were the results. It is apparent that those of us on this blog are far more informed on the basics of civics than the public at large.
Comment by Rod Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 6:49 am
The Speaker is consistently and outspokenly protective of the role and independence of the legislature. Uncharacteristic that he would issue a statement bascially supporting Quinn’s move here (think of the precedent, and how it might be misused in the future). Then, once Lisa indicated she’s reviewing this, it all made sense. Mike clears the way for her to stand up for the constitution, and allows her to disagree with him in the process. This sort of tag team dance may become common should the Madigans end up running both branches of state government. Having their cake and eating it too…
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 6:57 am
Willy-
I think it is probably a lose-lose either way.
Either she backs Pat Quinn or she puts herself on the wrong side of editorial boards across the state.
Comment by Juvenal Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 7:47 am
To navigate the politics well, all Lisa has to do is a straight-up job as the state’s lawyer. The constitution is what it is, and AGs typically do well by just being good lawyers. Leave it to the Governor to criticize a straight-up legal opinion, in defense of his gimmick, no matter how well intended. A governor has plenty of tools to do his or her job in shaping legislative outcomes. Depriving a co-equal beach of government log their pay is not one of them.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 8:21 am