Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

In editorial agreement (mostly)

Posted in:

Illinois

Not so long ago, Exelon, which runs six nuclear energy plants in Illinois, was extolling the merits of an open market for power as its profits rolled in.

Now, with power prices plunging, Exelon has lost enthusiasm for the open markets it championed in the 1990s and wants the Legislature to devise a new formula that will protect its profits, quite likely driving up utility bills for homeowners and businesses. The company says it needs to pull in as much as an extra $580 million to avoid having to close several of its power plants. Suddenly, a little government intervention is looking good.

We’re not sure the Legislature should even bite. But before doing anything, it should insist that Exelon prove its case. If Exelon is hard up, they can show us. The company should open its books to show how its nuclear fleet is performing. Right now, Exelon won’t even say whether its nuclear plants are making money as a group.

If the Legislature does decide to give Exelon an assist, it should insist on a rate cap to protect consumers. There is no way the Legislature should bail out a company whose nuclear plants are profitable — according to an analysis by Crain’s Chicago Business — in such a way that ratepayers get hammered.

Yep.

* Tribune…

The [three west suburban school districts] want to sever ties to the Lyons Township school treasurer’s office. The treasurer, who is appointed by the Lyons Township trustees of schools, is supposed to invest money and manage payrolls for 13 school districts and educational cooperatives in the area. The school districts have to pay the treasurer for the services. Three of those districts say they could do the work themselves at much less expense.

One, LaGrange Elementary School District 105, has paid the treasurer’s office $84,000 in each of the past two years — way too much, the district says. Lyons Township High School District 204 and LaGrange Elementary School District 102 also want to break from the treasurer’s office. They can’t, though, unless all 13 districts agree to opt out.

This is more than just a story about unneeded government in Illinois. (The state has nearly 7,000 units of government.) Here’s what’s particularly galling: Last year, a former Lyons Township school treasurer, Robert Healy, was charged with stealing about $1.5 million from local school districts over two decades.

Almost all of Illinois gets along quite nicely without this duplication of service. The General Assembly created the office of township trustees of schools in 1819, but wised up in 1962. That’s when the legislature abolished the offices everywhere in the state, except Cook County.

House GOP Leader Jim Durkin has a bill to allow those schools to opt out. He’s working on another bill to make it easier for all Cook County school districts to opt out. If it saves the schools that kind of money, why not?

* SJ-R…

Although undervoting – in this case, the absence of votes for particular races on a ballot – aren’t necessarily a reflection of voters’ dissatisfaction with the lack of choices on the ballot, it’s fair to assume that some of them are. Many people have at least one friend or relative who abstains from casting a vote on unopposed races as a form of protest.

Consider this: a check of votes and undervotes in races with two or more candidates on Tuesday’s ballot in Sangamon County shows the undervote percentage ran roughly 1 to 3 percent, calculated race by race.

But in the unopposed races, the undervote percentage leapt to double digits – ranging from about 15 to 22 percent, depending on the race.

Iron-clad proof that voters want choice? Not necessarily. Food for thought? Absolutely.

I almost never vote for an unopposed candidate.

* Daily Herald…

For our part, we’ve opposed Pat Quinn a lot over the years but never found him dislikable. In office, he often acted courageously — including the pledge to our editorial board last month that led to his undoing, his lightning-rod vow to push through a repeat of the lame-duck tax increase.

We will miss Quinn’s affability, his incessant cheerfulness, his realness. When, through cute circumstance, he called a home run from the broadcast booth of a White Sox game last summer, he did it with a fan’s boyish glee. It was as genuine a moment as Wednesday’s concession.

Our biggest problem with Quinn was less his motives or his politics, but more that through years of misgovernment, Illinois has fallen into such a deep crisis that it cannot be raised with the status quo or one-party rule.

* But I’m not so sure about this one…

The Associated Fire Fighters of Illinois has pushed the bill, saying too few firefighters on an engine company invites danger. The union points out that the number of firefighters responding to a blaze is as important as the speed.

But municipal officials correctly say they have to balance firefighting needs with other budgetary considerations. As the Legislature debated the issue in the spring, Buffalo Grove officials estimated that one extra firefighter position for each fire truck would cost $1.3 million a year, and Aurora said its total would be $4.6 million. That’s a big chunk of a municipal budget in the suburbs or Downstate.

The bill passed the Illinois House 63-44 in spring, but stalled in the Senate. Backers need to get it through the upper chamber in the Legislature’s upcoming veto or lame-duck sessions, or start over. They know their odds of success likely will grow worse under a Gov. Rauner.

The bill would add staffing levels to collective bargaining issues that can go to binding arbitration. Now, binding arbitration is limited to wages, hours and working conditions. That means if unions and local governments don’t agree on staffing levels, under this bill an arbiter could come in and do it for them. If the arbitrator decides a particular town needs more firefighters or paramedics than local officials think, they won’t have any say in the matter.

On the other hand, the arbiter could decide a town needs fewer firefighters or paramedics than unions contend. The bill may need some tweaking to set some clear standards, but to automatically assume that a neutral outside party will always side with the unions is puzzling to me. Maybe I’m missing something here. Please inform me if I’m wrong.

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:56 pm

Comments

I’d like to see a law where if there’s an unopposed candidate voters can simply vote “yes” or “no”. If “no” wins there’s a new election in one month sans that candidate.

Comment by Chicago Gunowner Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 2:03 pm
As a person who is reasonably on top of state news, if Pat Quinn is indeed affable and forever cheerful, I’ve never gotten that from anything read or seen in the media. Or I should say, very rarely. He/publicist really were inept if it’s true.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 2:06 pm
RE:Undervoting–Had more voters in my precinct undervote than in any of the previous elections I have worked since 2008. Heard from several that it was a waste of time to vote in a race that had only one candidate.

Comment by Nearly Normal Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 2:07 pm
All Exelon has to do is provide enough dense material that the GA can’t figure out exactly what is going on and end up believing whatever Exelon says. It can work.

Comment by dupage dan Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 2:11 pm
I wonder how many legislators who were elected last week were unopposed? It was well over half in 2012.

Comment by anon Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 2:20 pm
I always got the feeling Quinn was a little like the Phil Hartmann version of Reagan. Very affable, “will of the people law of the land” in public but kind of a ruthless operator once he’s behind closed doors.

*waits to get criticized by Repubs for comparing Quinn to Reagan

Comment by chi Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 2:21 pm
Often when confronted with two candidates, I vote for the lesser of two evils. If there is only one candidate on the ballot, and that candidate is evil,I don’t cast a vote .Why vote for evil?

Comment by Truthteller Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 2:28 pm
Didn’t we pay for those Exelon plants already? And we’re now going to have to pay for them again? Ummm…don’t think so.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 2:33 pm
I’m not sure the exact background, but I bet it has something to do with other municipalities having minimum manning. If they have it, can’t we? Then once that’s written down, it’s very difficult to change.

Most importantly, what are the end results? More fires? More deaths? More injuries? What about changes in technology? The recent trend is that fewer fires, fewer fire fatalities, way more ambulance runs. If you encase minimum manning into contract, it binds the hands of the local governments.

Comment by Anon Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 2:36 pm
In America there is a growing movement to provide public safety officers, which combine the police and fire departments. I suppose there is some merit to paying folks to hang around on the payroll until the fire bell rings and retire after 20 years, but that’s not the path we are headed down. The unions understand they need to lock in these practices.

Comment by Madison Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 2:56 pm
==All Exelon has to do is provide enough dense material that the GA can’t figure out exactly what is going on and end up believing whatever Exelon says. It can work.==

It not only “can” work…it “has” worked in the past.

Crain’s back of the envelope calculations already shows their fleet making good money as a whole. Only 2 maybe 3 plants are going to be unprofitable in the short term. By the way, Exelon shareholders didn’t pay for these plants…Illinois ratepayers paid for them.

So what should a reasonable business do? Figure it out… either subsidize the plants with your overall portfolio or shutter them.

But the bean counters upstairs want it both ways. They want the assets for the next 30 years because of EPA regulations and shuttering coal competition AND they want a little taxpayer cookie in the meantime when prices and demand are low.

Privatize profits, socialize risk.

That’s a game I want into…

Comment by Abe the Babe Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 3:02 pm
I suppose you’re right, Rich…an arbiter could just as easily rule against the fire fighters union. But the risk to the municipalities is that if manning becomes part of the negotiation process, it never goes away. So a town could see it’s population fall and it’s number of fires plummet (as many have,) but they couldn’t reduce the number of firefighters they employ without negotiating it with the union. I’m not sure that any group of municipal employees has that level of protection. Cops certainly don’t.

I could maybe see requiring minimum manning standards for a single fire truck, but if “manning” includes the total number of firefighters in the entire department or the total number assigned to one shift, then this bill goes too far.

Comment by Tom 23 Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 3:03 pm
Never in the history of labor arbitration in Illinois has an arbitrator reduced benefits, pay or manning. It won’t happen. Arbitrators are created by unionization, and they are soon blackballed if their decisions are adverse to union interests.

Comment by Liberty Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 3:31 pm
I don’t mind helping Exelon in the short-term because its nuke plants are a low-carbon resource that can address climate change and help us transition to a cleaner energy future. I wish we could put a price on carbon, but it’s not likely to happen any time soon.

However, I think the company needs to close its least competitive power plants, Clinton for sure and maybe Quad Cities. No more subsidies for these plants.

Comment by Going nuclear Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 3:32 pm
Rich,

Under current law, local government employee headcount is a prerogative of management. IML has a resource page that explains municipal opposition to the manning legislation. Our resource page is linked to below:

http://www.iml.org/page.cfm?key=10716

Comment by Joe McCoy Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 4:19 pm
==I almost never vote for an unopposed candidate.==
Ditto. I also rarely vote for a candidate whom I expect to win easily, since I think that more than 60% encourages shenanigans.

==through years of misgovernment, Illinois has fallen into such a deep crisis that it cannot be raised with the status quo or one-party rule==
Agree. I’d say Quinn was more fiscally responsible than his four immediate predecessors, but the state was still only able to tread water.

From what I’ve seen, the arbiter’s rulings have tended to be pretty friendly to the unions.

Comment by Anon Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 4:48 pm
Re FF minimum manning - there is no valid reason to change the system that currently exists. Union representatives and local leaders can meet to discuss staffing issues or concerns at any time.
HB 5485 will limit local elected officials ability to determine the appropriate levels of service for the community.
HB 5485 decreases flexibility in scheduling of staffing and equipment in relation to calls for service in the community both in terms of number and type.
HB 5485 inhibits change and innovation by not allowing local officials to adjust staffing based on technological advances in building construction, fire suppression systems, and automobile safety that could reduce the need for response capability.
HB 5485 would encourage staffing to be considered on a city-by-city basis and not give adequate consideration to sharing of resources and equipment across municipal boundaries. Intergovernmental cooperation of this type should be praised and fostered.

I understand that the firefighters are a powerful force in Springfield. They are persuasive because of “hero” status. They are many in number and they are well-organized. They are well-financed. But, I believe that the reasons to reject HB 5485 are compelling.

And, does anyone really think that the firefighters want this legislation because they want to negotiate for less staffing? Puhlease.

Comment by Anon Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 4:53 pm
To the extent that lack of staff (refuse to use “manning” as firefighters are female as well) increases the hours worked or the safety risk for current firefighters, it is not so obvious to me that it is not a condition of employment related to bargaining.

Comment by anon Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 5:03 pm
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2011/1stDistrict/September/1103417.pdf

Hb 5485 Codifies the Appellate Court decision. Clarifies once and for all that it a mandatory subject of bargaining. No more litigating it in courts costing tax payers thousands of dollars. It is the most important “condition of employment”. And Liberty is WRONG. Manning was reduced by an arbitrator in Rockford and Champaign.

Comment by Dude Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 9:40 pm