Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Stuck in the middle
Next Post: Zalewski advances gun crimes bill
Posted in:
* While most everyone else was watching the gay marriage vote play out, Jamey Dunn at Illinois Issues kept her eye on other Statehouse developments, including the supplemental approp…
The Illinois House voted to approve additional spending for the current fiscal year, but the legislation did not include funding for back pay owed to state workers.
House Bill 209 contains $49.6 million in spending, the bulk of which, $30 million, would be used to implement the state’s new concealed carry law. Most of the money in the bill comes from special funds. Only about $500,000 of general revenue funds would be spent under the measure […]
[Steve Brown, spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan], said Madigan does not intend for there to be a vote on back pay [if and when legislators come back to deal with the pension issue]. “I’m not aware of any of that having anything to do with additional spending,” he said. “I am sure there are people out there who think that. I think the governor thinks that, but I’m not sure that there’s much of the legislature that’s subscribers to that idea.”
Brown said he does not think many in the House are interested in approving more GRF spending. “I think the speakers’ view on this other issues is that the agencies were granted lump sums. It’s really up to them to manage that. I don’t think that position has changed. There appears to be some additional revenue. I think the general view of the House has been over the last several years is if there’s revenue that comes in that we don’t know about in May, that ought to go to paying old bills. That ought to be our top priority.”
* Meanwhile, this was an expected development…
The Illinois General Assembly’s budget forecasting arm on Tuesday revised its revenue forecast upward by $369 million for the fiscal year that ends June 30.
The Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability’s revised analysis includes $200 million more projected to come from sales taxes, an extra $97 million that was transferred to the General Revenue Fund because it wasn’t needed to pay income tax refunds, and $72 million from court settlement proceeds.
The commission’s estimate raises the general fund estimate for the fiscal year to $35.8 billion from $35.45 billion, an increase of about 1 percent.
Jim Muschinske, the commission’s revenue manager, said after a meeting of the panel made up of House and Senate members that pent-up demand for cars was helping increase sales tax receipts.
* Oy…
Illinois has some of the most stringent requirements in the U.S. for background checks for child care workers, but also had the highest noncompliance rate for those inspections and failed to provide background checks on more than 13 percent of people working with children.
That’s according to the watchdog arm of the federal Department of Health and Human Services, which found that Illinois missed 82 percent of its required inspections of child care facilities and failed to record whether the inspections it did conduct were unannounced.
In states that did check on child care providers’ compliance with background checks, they found that 22 percent had not initiated or renewed their background screenings as required by state laws. In Illinois, 13.1 percent of those screenings were deficient.
* And speaking of the budget…
Illinois prison officials estimate nearly 30,000 newly freed inmates will be eligible for Medicaid coverage in 2014 under President Barack Obama’s health care law.
The Springfield bureau of Lee Enterprises newspapers reports state officials say better access to care for physical and mental health issues may help parolees succeed outside of prison.
The Department of Corrections plans eventually to help inmates connect with Medicaid before they’re released, so they can make a smooth transition into the state and federal health care program for the poor.
* And Reboot Illinois sums up the Tribune’s series on Chicago’s debt problem…
Over the past many years, the city has taken out $4.8 billion in long-term loans to pay for short-term things like Palm Pilot software already practically extinct. And garbage bins, library books and doggie poop bags.
City officials used long-term loans to pay off millions in one-time legal settlements and expenses.
Chicago has added more debt to refinance old loans that will end up costing taxpayers more for years to come in extra interest payments. The move wasn’t done to get a lower interest rate and save taxpayers’ money.
Less than one third of a total of $9.8 billion in borrowing was spent on long-term capital projects that might benefit future taxpayers.
Read those Trib stories by clicking here.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:57 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Stuck in the middle
Next Post: Zalewski advances gun crimes bill
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I guess Madigan has 2 different opinions on back pay. One standard for HIS back pay, another for state workers.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 11:13 am
DuPage, you are correct and that is sad.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 11:24 am
Looks like a boat load of interest is piling up too.
Comment by foster brooks Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 11:30 am
What Dupage said!
It didn’t take Mikey and the boys very long to file a lawsuit on the state’s dime to get THEIR backpay PLUS interest. And they were only about two months behind in what they were owed.
But when it comes to taking care of the state employees, the ones who have full time jobs, Mikey isn’t interested.
But I guess what do you expect. I am kinda surprised he didn’t say something like “Let them eat cake”
Comment by Irish Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 12:00 pm
I disagree with those who blame the legislatures for not funding the back pay.
The way I understand it various departments were provided lump sums to operate. These department heads are the ones that chose to use the funds for something other than the pay raises.
Comment by MOON Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 12:31 pm
MOON - Didn’t the Governor announce that there wasn’t enough to pay the raises, and so the contract was nullified? That would take the decision out of the Directors’ hands. But, now that the courts have held against the Governor, and everyone seems to think the agencies can’t pay the back pay out of current appropriations, the legislature should act.
Comment by Anon. Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 12:48 pm
Moon you obviously are not employed by a state agency that has employees owed backpay. The agencies were not funded the money to pay the raises that the employees were guaranteed by the state. Therefore the state is responsible for paying back the owed wages. The lump sum you think you know so much about paid everyone about 4% of what each individual is owed. So it would be wise to not comment on things that you do not have any idea about. Some employees are in need of this money that is OWED to them that they EARNED. Some employees take this a little bit more serious then someone who has nothing to gain or lose from this.
Comment by c/o Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 12:50 pm
Unfortunately the lump sums aren’t large enough to pay the back pay and current salaries. The only way to pay the back wages is to do zero hiring or layoffs. The lump sums didn’t even factor in the COLA in the current contract.
Comment by LTSW Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 12:53 pm
Its up to the agencies to decide how to budget their lump sum. I am not saying the money is not owed the employees. I am saying the Directors are the ones who did not fulfill their obligation.
Comment by MOON Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 12:57 pm
Because they were not given the money to fulfill their obligation. They are the ones who didn’t abide by the contract. How can the directors give you the money owed if the state doesnt give it to them?
Comment by c/o Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 1:03 pm
c/o
I refer you to ltsw post at 12:53.
The State is broke.
I think ltsw is correct. No new hires or if needed do layoffs to fund the back pay.
Comment by MOON Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 1:09 pm
Moon - you couldn’t be more wrong. Agencies have items that have to be paid. There is not large lump sums that the Director’s spend at their own descretion. Some funds have to be spent for certain things dependent upon where the money comes from. Example; DNR gets money that is sent back to the state from the feds for programs that DNR runs. Those monies have to be spent on the programs that generated the money in the first place. So even though it looks like DNR’s budget has X amount of dollars in it Y amount of that is already dedicated.
Then there is the money that agencies have to give to CMS for leasing of buildings, office equipment, and vehicles, that the Agency paid for out of their budget, but still have to lease from CMS.
There are the funds that the Agencies are directed to pay out to other entities in the form of grants so politicians can be re-elected.
What’s left goes to costs to operate and maintain their facilities. An agency director cannot choose to forego giving CMS their lease money in lieu of giving employees their back pay. They cannot tell a legislator, no I can’t give your district a grant for a city park because I have to pay my employees back pay.
Agency Director’s do what the Governor wants them to do or they don’t hang around.
Comment by Irish Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 1:23 pm
If the back pay can be paid out of current appropriations for services, then contract law requires it to be paid before the department can incur new obligations that would deplete the appropriation. That would mean some combination of no new hires, layoffs (following collective bargaining agreement rules for union, but not for merit comp), and no raises except as contractually obligated, if necessary to allow the agency to meet its obligations.
Comment by Anon. Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 1:26 pm
IRISH
The Directors can layoff people.
Portions of their budgets can be cut.
Comment by MOON Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 1:27 pm
ANON 1:26
Thank you.
Your explanation coincides with my thoughts on this matter.
Comment by MOON Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 1:38 pm
“… I think the general view of the House has been over the last several years is if there’s revenue that comes in that we don’t know about in May, that ought to go to paying old bills. That ought to be our top priority.”
Some of those old bills are the pension funds that were shorted … but there doesn’t seem to be any hurry to pay those bills!
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:12 pm
@MOON:
You don’t get the issue. Sure, they could pay the raises out of the lump sums (maybe). But they will eventually need a supplemental to make it through the entire year.
You are woefully uninformed on how agency budgets work.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:32 pm
==If the back pay can be paid out of current appropriations for services, then contract law requires it to be paid before the department can incur new obligations that would deplete the appropriation. ==
No, it doesn’t. Again, no understanding of the budget.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:33 pm
DEMORALIZED
If the current “lump sum” after layoffs and no new hires cannot cover the raises then wait until next fiscal year and then pay the raises.
All that I am saying is the Directors need to priortize their spending.
The Directors need to put the raises first and then use the rest of their “lump sum” to fund as best as possible the needs of their agency.
Comment by MOON Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:48 pm
@MOON:
This isn’t chump change. This isn’t something that you can just “manage” the budget around. If you think they should manage with layoffs I can tell you the number of layoffs that would be required, especially given the fact that it is already November, would be substantial. If this were something smaller I might agree with your assessment. But it’s a very large dollar amount. It simply cannot be managed.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:56 pm
==If the current “lump sum” after layoffs and no new hires cannot cover the raises then wait until next fiscal year and then pay the raises.==
Sorry. I misread that. I didn’t see that you said wait until next year.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:57 pm
Irish, DNR has hired new employees this FY. Since some agencies found the $ for back pay, it is possible. So, can you admit DNR Director Miller chose new employees over back pay?
In my years with the State, layoffs were a painful, but periodic fact of life. Layoffs are an option to deal with the back pay issue.
Of course, every time the Governor wants to close a facility, AFSCME and local legislators fight it.
Comment by Sir Reel Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 3:16 pm
As long as Madigan keeps feeling like that 7% interest keeps building. You can pay me now or pay me later sir
Comment by milkman Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 3:36 pm
Moon
If you don’t know what you’re talking about don’t comment. The back pay cannot be paid out of their lump sum money because the money comes from prior fiscal years, which requires a special appropriation. Many employees were paid FY13 money, which had to be paid out by 8/31/13. FY12 money was paid out up to the level held in escrow by court order. All the rest of FY12 money requires a special appropriation.
“Its up to the agencies to decide how to budget their lump sum. I am not saying the money is not owed the employees. I am saying the Directors are the ones who did not fulfill their obligation.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 4:32 pm
right it requires a special appropriation which Madigan is refusing to even bring up. He’ll go to court to get his own money but tells us to f-off when we try to get ours
Comment by milkman Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 5:28 pm
Past due bills - 1% Interest
Back Pay - 7% Interest
If this was your home budget, what would you pay first?
Comment by Can't Say My Nickname Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 6:45 pm
So, basically nothing whatsoever was done today or yesterday regarding the back pay? Why are they not dealing with this??
Comment by Zander Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 7:14 pm