Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Caption contest!
Next Post: Fahner: “I misspoke”
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office confirmed Monday it will have a direct role in the legal dispute over Gov. Pat Quinn’s move to cut legislative salaries despite the fact her father, House Speaker Michael Madigan, is a plaintiff in the case.
The three-term attorney general will represent Republican Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka in the case that pits her and Quinn against the House speaker and Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago), who sued the governor and comptroller.
“There’s not a conflict of interest because of the familial relationship,” said Natalie Bauer, a spokeswoman for the attorney general. Cullerton and Speaker Madigan “filed in their official capacity as the legislative leaders, so there is no conflict.”
The case is scheduled for its first hearing Tuesday before Cook County Associate Judge Neil Cohen, who is being asked to grant a preliminary injunction that would set aside Quinn’s line-item veto and authorize Topinka to resume paying legislators, who missed their first paychecks last week.
The motion for a preliminary injunction is here. The governor’s general counsel was served with the papers as well.
*** UPDATE *** From the Twitters…
.@GovernorQuinn has just showed up at the first court hearing into stopping lawmakers pay until #pensions passes
— Tony Arnold (@tonyjarnold) August 6, 2013
Keep an eye on our live feed for more updates.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Twitters…
Court hearing already over; schedule set for filings due; oral arguments over lawmaker pay is set for sept 18; gov didn't talk at hearing
— Tony Arnold (@tonyjarnold) August 6, 2013
That means two paychecks will be missed and likely no pension reform until after Sept. 18th unless they can somehow convince the judge to issue an order beforehand.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 9:09 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Caption contest!
Next Post: Fahner: “I misspoke”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The motion is precise and on point. I look forward to the Governor’s written response. But if LM will represent JBT, who will represent PQ?
Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 9:21 am
===who will represent PQ? ===
So far, it’s his general counsel, as noted above.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 9:23 am
–“There’s not a conflict of interest because of the familial relationship,” said Natalie Bauer, a spokeswoman for the attorney general. Cullerton and Speaker Madigan “filed in their official capacity as the legislative leaders, so there is no conflict.”–
If everything is kosher because the Madigans are acting in their official capacities, why did Lisa throw the old man under the bus about how she couldn’t run for governor while he was speaker?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 9:23 am
Bill White
The attorney general granted permission to have Quinn be represented by lawyer Steven Pflaum and attorneys from the firm, Neil Gerber & Eisenberg LLP. The governor’s office handpicked the lawyers it wished to represent him in the case.
Comment by Hank Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 9:25 am
wordslinger-
I think that statement she made about not running for Governor is going to be hung around her for a very long time. Heck, if I were the GOP caucus leaders, I would sue to intervene in the case (it isn’t like they are getting paid, so they have just as much standing), and then motion to bounce her specifically for that reason.
When you are in a super-minority, it’s time to take gift-horses like that quote and push them for all you can get out of them.
Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 9:26 am
It will be interesting to see if Lisa’s office files anything of substance.
In cases like this, you have “necessary parties.” They are named as parties to be bound by the judgment, but no actual relief is sought against them and they do not take a substantive position. Often they are served and then just stipulate to follow any order of the court.
That may well be the case here. It seems the Comptroller should not be taking a position in the dispute. Her job is to write the checks that she’s ordered to write.
It would be different if the AG was representing either Quinn or the plaintiffs.
So based on what I expect to happen, I just don’t see a conflict.
Comment by Wolfie Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 9:27 am
==Her job is to write the checks that she’s ordered to write.==
That is absolutely NOT true. The Comptroller doesn’t issue a check simply because somebody tells them to. If you were involved in the process you would know better than to say something like that.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 9:31 am
I wonder if Quinn’s lawyer fees will be public record. It seems this gimmick will just cost the taxpayers more money. I also think this just highlights the irony of arguing constitutional protections over their pay while trying to agree on a way to cut pensions.
I don’t see how it isn’t a conflict to have dad on one side and daughter representing the other side. Bizarro world.
Comment by law abiding citizen Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 9:32 am
Setting aside the family relationship for a second aren’t all the plaintiff attorneys listed as special assistant attorneys general? I guess it’s not a conflict but that seems very odd.
Comment by The Captain Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 9:34 am
==all the plaintiff attorneys listed as special assistant attorneys general==
That’s the designation given to outside attorneys that represent the state.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 9:54 am
Quinn has his mojo back
Comment by Easy Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 10:05 am
So Quinn, Madigan, and Cullerton are going to waste millions in outside attorney fees that taxpayers have to pay be ause Quinn wants to be a populist. Will the attorneys have to wait 6 months to be paid or do thier checks clear right away. Illinois one more reason we are a national joke.
Comment by Fed up Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 10:07 am
So Quinn shows up to a hearing BUT sends a representative to the pension meetings. Please please please tell me voters can see through this stuff.
Comment by Centennial Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 10:15 am
Odd that the Governor showed up at the hearing in person.
Comment by phocion Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 10:15 am
BTW how many millions did it cost for PQ, his entourage, security forces, airplanes, limos and lawyers to roll up to the court house today?
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 10:24 am
What, is Quinn going to give the Judge the “Stink Eye” to get the Glorious Leader’s way?
I am shocked Quinn showed up, I mean the Glorious Leader is working “day and night” and he found time to Grandstand at court…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 10:32 am
I am eager to read the Governor’s written response.
Maybe his lawyers should attach the preamble to SB1 and argue that the ginormous threat arising from the pension crisis justifies breaking the normal rules.
Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 10:32 am
PQ should be the attorney and represent himself. That would make me smile.
Comment by Pensions! Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 10:35 am
- Bill White -,
The seperation of powers, the essence of democratic government is kinda a big deal. Should Quinn declare “martial law” while he is at, so he can get extra pens for IDOT?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 10:37 am
–I don’t see how it isn’t a conflict to have dad on one side and daughter representing the other side. Bizarro world–
I am with LAC here. Please someone explain how this isn’t a conflict? I agree that LM can diferentiate and i am not trying to cast dispersions on her. This just seems like such a clear conflict of interest. Father as plaintiff (even if official capacity) with Daughter as Attorney for defendant.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 10:40 am
No pension bill until this is resolved. Quinn can not win through Extortion, and I doubt MJM and Cullerton will not allow the Glorious Leader the chance to look like this stunt worked. Democracy is just too important to let Populist Pat Quinn steamroll it.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 10:41 am
===Please someone explain how this isn’t a conflict?===
If she was still living at home with her father, then yeah. Otherwise, this is about the merits of a case.
But she did make this an issue with her withdrawal from the governor’s race, so this argument is really her fault here.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 10:43 am
@Rich
I understand that she isn’t financially dependent on her father. As i said i am not bashing her as daddy’s little princess or any of that other tripe. However in theory she is emotionally attached to her father as most of us are. To me the question is this if to provide the best defense to her client it requires her to dismantle her fathers political career can she ignore those emotional ties?
To top it off the optics on this just look terrible.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 11:00 am
(1) Willy, Quinn is spending his nights and days working on campaign now. Showing up in court to fight the evil legislators makes for good campaign rhetoric.
(2) Two missed paychecks will make for very surly Solons. Won’t be pretty for any Quinn initiatives.
(3) Wondering what would happen if Judy wanted to settle since she believes Quinn is wrong. AG asks for settlement, Quinn fights - fun stuff. Just asking.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 11:02 am
===the optics on this just look terrible===
To you, maybe.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 11:07 am
The longer this drags out, the longer pension ‘reform’ gets delayed, and the closer we get to the election, the more likely it is to end up with a co-mingled tax/pension ‘reform’ solution.
Think it was Raymond Poe yesterday who said he could support extending the current temporary income tax rate IF all the money went to pay the pensions. That thought process may spread …
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 11:16 am
===the optics on this just look terrible. ===
I know it’s hard to believe, but everything isn’t about optics. There comes a point when it’s about the law rather than politics. I understand that everyone has a different definition of what’s considered a “conflict of interest,” but the rule is rather clear for attorneys practicing law. She doesn’t have a conflict.
Comment by ugh Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 11:20 am
- Norseman -
To your “1)”,
Can NOT agree more. Populist Quinn is at the controls…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 11:24 am
There is simply no way this is not a conflict of interest, to say otherwise is to willingly suspend disbelief.
Comment by John A Logan Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 11:28 am
Ugh
As myself not being an attorney what makes it not a conflict. I understand that her dad is filing as speaker and not as MJM Lawmaker and citizen. Is that the difference?
As for the Optics part i wasn’t even referring to politics. I guess i could have been more clear. It appears that a daughter arguing against her father would have a conflict of interest. Again it has nothing to do with the Madigans.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 11:30 am
I find JBT’s role in this suit still unclear. She is an interested party, and will be guided by the court’s ruling in doing her job, but will she take a constitutional stance one way or the other? Will she support PQ’s action?
Will this become a three-way?
Comment by walkinfool Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 11:32 am
Walkinfool,
That’s exactly the issue.
She could be just a necessary party brought in for the purpose of being bound by the judgment.
Potentially, she could take a substantive position.
As long as she is just a necessary party, there is absolutely no conflict.
Comment by Wolfie Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 11:34 am
Quinn has time to show up for what is essentially a meaningless procedural hearing (one with plenty of TV cameras stationed outside the courtroom,) but didn’t have time to meet with the pension reform conference committee. And, according to the members, Quinn’s staff is not working with the conference committee as they run the numbers on possible reform scenarios.
And who’s not serious about producing a solution?
Comment by Frank Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 11:44 am
This is it? 200K wasted on staff, limos, security, no fly zones, catering…..
“CHICAGO (AP) — Gov. Pat Quinn says a lawsuit over his decision to suspend lawmaker pay for failing to act on the state pension crisis will be a “landmark” case “
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 11:48 am
Oswego Willy, I believe Pat Quinn fully expects to LOSE this case. And thereby win a larger war.
Vaccination only works if the patient kills off a weakened infection before facing the more virulent infection.
Pension “reform” - a bogus euphemism for diminishing constitutionally protected benefits - will be delayed or defeated and the Republicans won’t have a target to pin the blame on.
Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 11:48 am
==Odd that the Governor showed up at the hearing in person.==
He probably prepped by watching the Senate hearing scene from Godfather II, where Frank Pentangeli’s brother just sat in the back and stared at him. Guess it didn’t work on whoever was the intended target of his righteous anger.
Comment by Anon. Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 11:52 am
How does this pay dispute compare to lawmaker furloughs? Could a rep with a career death wish sue to collect full pay?
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 12:07 pm
==Odd that the Governor showed up at the hearing in person.==
Possibly he wanted the Judge to think about his paycheck.
Comment by Bigtwich Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 12:31 pm
People, Lisa Madigan is the Attorney General and is fulfilling her obligations. Why is that so hard to understand? This conflict stuff is absolute nonsense. She may have brought some of this stuff on with her comments regarding her father when deciding not to run for Governor, but she is still the Attorney General and has a job to do. She was elected to do that job and she is doing it. If you don’t like these made up conflicts that some of you are clinging to then don’t vote for her next time. It’s that simple.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 12:52 pm
==How does this pay dispute compare to lawmaker furloughs?==
It doesn’t. The lawmakers voted on furloughs.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 12:53 pm
JBT’s position seems simple enough: the IL Constitution does not authorize me to arbitrate disputes between the Governor and General Assembly.
Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 12:56 pm
@ Demoralized
Thank you for that info, I did not know that.
Comment by The Captain Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 12:57 pm
If Quinn can do this to the legislators, could he do it to the judges, too?
Comment by Hadn't thought of that Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 1:36 pm
==If Quinn can do this to the legislators, could he do it to the judges, too?==
Technically, yes, but the fact is that he can’t do it to either. I don’t think the furloughs would hold up in court if a member sued to get his full pay, either, but who would sue?
Comment by Anon. Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 1:43 pm
Captain - The issue of the legislator furloughs is essentially a politically moot point. Only six Solons voted against the furloughs. These are: Rep. W. Davis and Sens. Hunter, Hutchinson, E. Jones, Lightford and Martinez. While I don’t accept the point that the General Assembly voting for the furloughs necessarily eliminates the constitutionality question, I doubt that any of these six will proceed to court. I believe the court would question the standing of a legislator who voted FOR the furloughs.
Should one of the no’s had chosen to take it to court, the argument would be that the salary reduction - despite the language in the law that says it’s not a salary change (see pertinent section below) - is an individual “member” protection as much as an institutional one. The majority cannot take away the constitutional rights of an individual.
If I were to be consistent, I should be harping about the precedent this sets. However, I’m going to admit being hypocritical here because they’re doing it to themselves and I and so many other state workers have had to suffer our own furloughs and no salary increases for years.
=== (25 ILCS 115/1.9 new)
Sec. 1.9. FY14 furlough days. During each month of the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2013, every member of the 98th General Assembly is mandatorily required to forfeit one day of compensation. The State Comptroller shall deduct the equivalent of 1/261st of the annual salary of each member of the 98th General Assembly from the compensation of that member in each month of the fiscal year. For purposes of this Section, annual compensation includes compensation paid to each member by the State for one year of service pursuant to Section 1, except any payments made for mileage and allowances for travel and meals. The forfeiture required by this Section is not considered a change in salary and shall not impact pension or other benefits provided to members of the General Assembly.
(Public Act 098-0030) ===
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 1:47 pm
@Demoralized and @The Captain:
Any member could challenge the reduction in pay due to the furlough days if they wanted to. The current lawsuit isn’t about the furlough days, but it could impact them. If the court finds that legislator’s pay cannot be changed, it’s possible he could order legislators receive full pay. Or if the members win, another action could be brought to strike down the furlough days.
Basically, this could be another instance where Pat Quinn’s playpen behavior bites him in the rear.
Comment by humm Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 1:48 pm
@humm:
I disagree. I don’t think the two situations are even remotely related.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 2:27 pm
“That means two paychecks will be missed and likely no pension reform until after Sept. 18th unless they can somehow convince the judge to issue an order beforehand.”
I don’t understand why pension reform has to wait until September 18. The two issues are not really linked are they? I mean other than in Quinn’s head.
Comment by wishbone Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 5:10 pm
wishbone,
If pension ‘reform’ is passed before the pay hearing, Quinn can claim he won and take the credit. Even if the committee is ready, Madigan and Cullerton are not going to call a vote and give Quinn a ‘win’. Politics 102, payback …
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 5:47 pm
“Politics 102, payback …”
Thanks, I apparently flunked 101 as many here are quick to point out.
Comment by wishbone Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 6:53 pm
This is clearly a conflict of interest. Anyone arguing otherwise doesn’t understand legal ethics. Any other attorney attempting something similar to this would have the ARDC all over them.
Comment by Generation X Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 6:59 pm
Quinn will claim a win if the legislature enacts pension reform, even if they wait til after 9/18 and even if a judge imposes an injunction that day and orders them paid.
Quinn will say: if he hadn’t suspended their pay, they wouldn’t have passed the bill.
What will the legislature say in response? Will they say “it’s just a coincidence, this bill had nothing to do with the Governor’s veto, we were just about to pass this bill anyway”? Yeah, that’ll surely wash.
Meanwhile Sen. Steans is now saying a bill should be ready by the end of August. Would there be a bill this month if not for the conference committee? Would there be a conference committee if not for the Governor’s insistence on that process? Would the conference committee have acted quickly if not for the uncertainty regarding legislative salaries?
As I see it: the heat the Governor applied is having a positive effect on this legislative constipation.
Comment by Rudy Tuesday, Aug 6, 13 @ 10:15 pm
Folks, this won’t be over on September 18th.
Oral arguments will be made on September 18th and there is a good chance the judge will take the matter under advisement and prepare a written decision, on whatever time table the trial judge deems appropriate.
Also, whether the preliminary injunction is granted or denied, either party can appeal as a matter of right.
Comment by Bill White Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 12:48 am