Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Pay Now coalition asks Supremes to review state employee pay issue

Posted in:

Illinois

* Check out the last, highlighted paragraph in this excerpt…

Today the Pay Now Illinois coalition requested the Illinois Supreme Court to take a direct appeal of their case and confirm the state’s obligation to fully pay social service providers it contracts with to care for vulnerable Illinoisans. The appeal also asks the court to resolve constitutional questions and safeguard the rights of every Illinoisan to be treated fairly and seek legal recourse when dam- aged by illegal business practices. The appeal marks the latest chapter in a story that has garnered national headlines since May, when 97 service providers from across Illinois sued Governor Bruce Rauner and leaders of seven state agencies for impairment of contract.

The defendants do not dispute that plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm as a result of the state’s illegal business practices, which left hundreds of providers unpaid for an entire fiscal year. And while the election-season “stopgap” bill passed in June allowed the state to pay many of the contracts that were issued a year earlier, this measure expires December 31st. Moreover, it does not include the necessary funding for FY17 contracts, which the state continues to issue and enforce, with no guarantee of payment and no clear access to a remedy, the appeal contends.

In August, when Circuit Court Judge Rodolfo Garcia dismissed the suit, he urged plaintiffs to bring the case to a higher court to expedite redress of the constitutional questions raised by the state’s business practices. In bringing this case to the Illinois Supreme Court, the plaintiffs are asking the Court to clarify an interpretation of a previous court decision that has allowed the state to continue to pay employees, even as it avoids payment to providers the state contracts with to provide services on the state’s behalf. […]

The appeal also asks the Supreme Court to clarify a court decision that has enabled state employees to earn $3.2 billion since 2015, while avoiding payment to hundreds of state contractors that employ thousands of Illinoisans who provide services on the state’s behalf. Pay Now Illinois is seeking only to have its contracts be honored and paid in full in a timely fashion. The initial suit sought payment of $161 million for services rendered.

Interesting.

The petition is here.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 3:01 pm

Comments

Welp, all the state employees that work with social services might feel a bit… uneasy…

Rauner “loves” this, pitting social services against state workers, and all he has to do is watch(?)

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 3:09 pm
Or conversely, we end up with a real shut down that pushes for an immediate resolution to the budget impasse.

Comment by Pawn Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 3:15 pm
Interesting wrinkle in claiming that the State never exercised its right to cancel the contract. That legal misstep may give the plaintiffs a win.

Originally, I thought they had no hope. Now I am undecided.

Comment by Last Bull Moose Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 3:18 pm
I’m not sure how they reached a conclusion that they have standing to essentially appeal a decision in a separate case.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 3:24 pm
Loving God……..this sounds so bad. Is this as bad I’m thinking it is?

Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 3:31 pm
Wait wait…..could this have been planned? I mean was this an unintended consequence or was it a planned consequence. Is that why it was a “business decision”? Does this put us back where we originally were with Munger not going to pay the state employees and thus forcing a quick resolution?

Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 3:33 pm
Munger fought to pay state employees, Honeybear. Please get it right. That was a source of conflict with the Rauner team.

Comment by Indochine Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 3:46 pm
I don’t think they’re simply arguing that employees shouldn’t get paid. Seems they would likely contend that everyone who does the work for IL should get paid for that work! In the normal world, taking something without paying is called stealing.

Anonymous @3.24 pm, IL Sup Ct Rule 302(b)

Comment by Facts are fun Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 3:47 pm
I guess this could go a couple of ways:

The Supremes say employee contracts must be honored even without an appropriation, therefore, social service contract provider contracts must be honored without an appropriation as well.

Or, the Supremes say state employees can’t be paid without an appropriation (that doesn’t help social service providers).

If the second happened, I imagine the GA and Rauner would just agree to an appropriation for state employees (they’re already paying them without having the revenue to do so, anyway).

–Munger fought to pay state employees, Honeybear. Please get it right. That was a source of conflict with the Rauner team. –

No, it wasn’t. The administration supported the effort. Superstars don’t work for free.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 3:55 pm
Sorry I didn’t mean to get it wrong. Maybe it was my conspiracy theory that Rauner/Munger had a secret thing to block our pay even though Rauner put out a letter saying he wanted us to get paid. I can’t remember the details. Oh well,

Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 4:04 pm
The reason that this case was dismissed is because circuit
courts have no jurisdiction over breach of contract claims against the State. The law is well settled on this point. So the plaintiffs know this and are just pursuing a frivolous claim for publicity. They need to file in the Court of Claims.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 4:10 pm
To those wondering on this thread, Judge Garcia at the Circuit Court focused on this issue in the hearing on August 31. He wanted to know: was our case more similar to the worker pay during impasse case or to the back pay case? The legal arguments centered around this issue. The appeal to the ISC simply follows that conversation.

You can read the brief — it is written in very accessible language.

Here is a relevant excerpt:

“Again, the Court in State v. AFSCME expressly left open the question of “[w]hether other state contracts with different provisions and different controlling law could also be subject to legislative appropriation without offending the contracts clause is not before us.” Id. at 54. The instant case raises that question, and the trial court dismissed it precisely because there is no clear guidance from this Court on how to resolve it. R. 206-08. Plaintiffs’ motion for direct appeal now places that question before this Court, and plaintiffs respectfully submit that sooner or later this Court must resolve it—as well as the quite different claim that these public officers had no authority to conduct the public business as they did. Given a continuing public emergency and the need to resolve that question promptly for the guidance of the General Assembly and the Governor—as well as themselves—plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court for leave to file their appeal.”

Comment by Andrea Durbin Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 4:12 pm
They can ask.

Comment by Norseman Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 5:29 pm
Finally had time to read it. Like -Last Bull Moose-, I found a couple of the claims interesting. I agree the State’s failure to cancel the contract due to non-funding is telling. As was Rauner’s multiple full vetoes after the services were delivered. Kind of surprised, based on those actions, they didn’t go further in claiming actual and deliberate fraud instead of just subtly implying it.

I think they’ve put enough on the table to warrant a review by the IL SC. The big question is, knowing the political ramifications, will the court take the direct appeal and wade into the middle of this mess, knowing the implications?

If the court does accept it for review, I think that pesky state (and even federal) contract clause is going to be a pivotal part of their decision.

I’d give it 55/45 on the court taking it, but something like 65/35 the plaintiffs win if accepted. We’ll see if the court is willing to collectively write a new chapter in Profiles in Courage.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 9:09 pm
I hope the SC does write that chapter, they’re about our only hope.

Comment by CCP Hostage Thursday, Oct 20, 16 @ 10:18 pm