Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Today’s quotable
Next Post: Today’s number: 1.4 million
Posted in:
* This is not the response that Brown gave me when I talked to him yesterday…
[Gov. Pat Quinn] has said Rauner’s appointment should not remain in office for the full four-year term, arguing that voters should get to elect a new comptroller during a special election to be held at the same time as the next statewide election, in 2016.
Quinn has called lawmakers back to the Capitol on Thursday to vote on a special election. It’s unclear if the Democrat-controlled General Assembly will go along with the idea. While Senate President John Cullerton supports a special election and is drafting legislation on the issue, powerful House Speaker Michael Madigan has argued that Quinn and Rauner should come to an agreement without the help of lawmakers.
A spokesman for Madigan on Monday said it’s too soon to say if the matter will be called for a vote or if the speaker will back the proposal.
“That’ll be dependent on how the bill is prepared,” spokesman Steve Brown said.
So, he’s no longer saying that this is purely an “executive department” decision. A door has clearly been opened, even if only a little.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 8:45 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Today’s quotable
Next Post: Today’s number: 1.4 million
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
My guess is that Munger will be allowed to serve four years and the consolidation referendum will be put up in 2016 to go in effect in 2018. It allows Rauner, whom they have to work with for the next four years, to save face and as a bonus it dashes Quinn’s plans one last time.
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 8:57 am
I just moved below 50% in my “Gavel in, Gavel out” belief..,
Now at 40% that will happen…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 8:58 am
Could it be that Madigan was willing to wait to see whether he and Rauner could work together, and he’s realizing that’s just not going to work out?
No more benefit of the doubt for Bruce?
Now it’s time to show him what the legislature can do if he doesn’t discuss his appointments to elected statewide offices with the speaker.
Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 9:01 am
Brown’s comments can be reconciled as both referring to “executive department” agreement if the “bill is prepared” jointly by teams Q & R.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 9:02 am
I’m more interested in how this affects the elimination of the Comptrollers office. If it gets on the ballot, the office is gone, and Munger will just be the caretaker in the transition. There’s not much political benefit to that. The jobs will be transferred from the GOP help Comp office to the Dem controlled Treasurer’s office, so MJM gets the jobs and consultant patronage eventually anyway.
I really hope MJM hasn’t decided to keep the two wasteful offices going….
Comment by Arizona Bob Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 9:13 am
Just a guess, but I think MJM will let Rauner veto a special election bill and have him explain what he has against the voters deciding on who their elected officials should be.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 9:27 am
==let Rauner veto a special election bill and have him explain what he has against the voters deciding ==
That’s what I would do. I want to see those who are against this try to explain to voters why they are against democracy. It’s an easy argument to make and a difficult argument to counter.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 9:34 am
Wordslinger,
Maybe you should read Cap Fax this morning. As I have been suggesting all along, the voters really don’t seem to care.
Comment by Jaded Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 9:35 am
Jaded, I’m quite certain that succession in the comptrollers office hasn’t been on the radar for most people during the holidays.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 9:44 am
“dem controlled patronage” in Treasurers office is different from “rep controlled patronage” in the prisons…how exactly?
Patronage is patronage.
Unless Bruce saves money and empties the prisons of pot smokers that cost taxpayers 20,000 plus a year, per person, to sit in “time-out”. End a lot of “patronage” jobs for reps.
Comment by Del Clinkton Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 9:47 am
I don’t think the speaker is real happy with the “tip of the iceberg” $20 million. That rivals his fund(s) and that’s the true source of his power..
Comment by Mouthy Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 9:51 am
=== Wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 9:44 am:
Jaded, I’m quite certain that succession in the comptrollers office hasn’t been on the radar for most people during the holidays.===
Is it a matter of their intellect? Just wondering. You seem to have had an Epiphany of sorts over night. lol.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 9:51 am
I’m not sure that Rauner has to work out anything with Quinn at this point. I believe he could just let the bill sit there and ask the newly sworn legislators to pass a new one. Not sure. But that’s what I’d do if I could.
He could request a bill that consolidates the two offices. That would be more interesting to the citizens than one that just calls for a special election.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 9:54 am
== I believe he could just let the bill sit there==
Are you talking about a bill passed after Rauner is in office?
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 10:08 am
A guy,
He can’t let it sit there or it becomes law. He would have to veto it, which I am sure he would do immediately to get it out of the way. Of course that is only assuming Madigan agrees to a special election bill, passes it and then holds it for Rauner instead of sending it to Quinn.
By the way I don’t think it be hard for Rauner to argue against the bill at all.
Press:”Why are you opposed to Democracy”
Rauner “I’m not opposed to Democracy. I am opposed to two offices when we only need one. I am opposed to using state resources to hold a special election when we could use them to put a Constitutional Amendment to the voters as to whether or not they want to combine the two offices. That my friends is democracy and not petty partisan politics which is what a special election would be all about.”
Comment by Jaded Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 10:10 am
Does anyone know why both offices can’t be consolidated/eliminated and a new Finance Office be created?
Comment by Soccertease Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 10:14 am
Some of us that were alive when Orville Hodge was are not yet persuaded that having two offices is a waist.
Comment by Bigtwich Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 10:15 am
Ok, waste but it is January so waist is on my mind.
Comment by Bigtwich Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 10:18 am
MJM wins if he holds his cards to the Spring. He can then trade, force a veto, or look the compromising and supportive one.
The only question is Gooner’s from yesterday: Can they actually call a Special Election in the absence of a vacancy, after Rauner appoints for four years and she’s sworn in? Wouldn’t the court likely punt on that one, and call it moot?
If Madigan handles this now, and gets it behind us, it’s a gift to Rauner either way.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 10:31 am
A special election serves no practical purpose. It does provide a diversion from attention on the real issues, e.g. the budget.
Comment by CitizenF Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 10:32 am
Me thinks MJM and Rauner are in a honeymoon phase and that MJM will not call anything opposed by the Gov. Elect.
IMHO - that is what is meant by “depends on how the bill is drafted”.
Comment by low level Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 10:36 am
sorry - “prepared” rather than “drafted”
Point still holds.
Situation is fluid however.
Comment by low level Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 10:38 am
This is all very exciting!
The Chess Master is going to meet Mr. Shake Up Springfield for their first political joustings! There is no way they’ll let a gadfly get into the game after his ouster as a wild card back in November!
Pat was fired.
No one listened to him before - why start now that he has earned that footnote in Illinois history?
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 11:12 am
===Jaded - Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 10:10 am:
A guy,
He can’t let it sit there or it becomes law. He would have to veto it, which I am sure he would do immediately to get it out of the way. Of course that is only assuming Madigan agrees to a special election bill, passes it and then holds it for Rauner instead of sending it to Quinn.===
We assumed the same thing, if as suggested it were presented to Rauner rather than Quinn. Quinn would sign it immediately. If it’s held over for Rauner, I believe he has 60 days to sit on it. Maybe I’m wrong. If he does, I’d wait the entire time before acting on it and ask the Legislature to pass a new, different bill that includes consolidating the offices.
MJM has been opposed to that. But, his members might peel off on this one and he stands out of the way. It’s populist legislation. That’s the kind that is hard to stop.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 11:13 am
If this consolidation happens, there will come a time in a few decades, when a statewide candidate will run on a “fiscal reform” and “good government” platform calling for the separation and popular election of these two offices — and that will then be seen as “populist” movement.
Just sayin’
Comment by walker Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 11:43 am
Walk, I think that already happened a while ago and we’re on the opposite side of that moon.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 12:01 pm
Though ==gavel in, gavel out== would make for quite a piece of legacy building by the Speaker himself.
In case anyone needs another reminder or example for the history books of who was the most powerful man in Springfield during the past two administrations, that would do it.
==Gavel in, gavel out==. Just a reminder to Mr. Quinn, a message to Mr. Rauner, and another tidy example for the Speaker’s own legacy. Could be interesting.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 12:29 pm
A crack appears…
I consider it rear cleavage.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 1:06 pm
I am in the camp that believes virtually no one other than our professional political class really cares a shred over whether or not the comptroller is elected in 2016 or appointed for a 4-year term. What will resonate with the public is the idea of voting to consolidate in 2016 and thereby reducing the size of the government, be it ever so tiny a step. I think it is Rauner who has the winning strategy here.
Comment by Skirmisher Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 1:28 pm
if rauner is looking at this as a stepping stone to ne to a higher office, the. Big picture he wants bipartisan support.
Merging the two offices and placing them with the elected Dem goves him a lot of political gain. He gets points for streamlining and triming government; and bipartisan points for doing it under a dem.
My speculation anyway.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 2:13 pm