Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Durkin says GOP workers’ comp plan a “starting point,” not an “ultimatum”

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* I told subscribers about this committee posting by Speaker Madigan yesterday. Here’s Leader Durkin’s response…

Dear Speaker Madigan,

During our Leaders’ meetings this week, we discussed the importance of enacting reforms to create jobs and grow our economy. Employment in Illinois is flat over the past decade, and we continue to lose manufacturing jobs while neighboring states expand. Without reforms that spur economic growth, increase employment, and bring new tax revenue through growth, Illinois will continue to suffer from structural budget deficits year after year.

Governor Rauner presented us with his ideas to create jobs, lower property taxes, and improve our schools. In Wednesday’s Leaders’ meeting, we discussed a specific proposal to lower workers’ compensation costs, understanding that Illinois’s costly, uncompetitive workers’ compensation system is one of the primary reasons that employers have left Illinois or choose not to relocate or expand here. That proposal was introduced in July 2015, following bipartisan discussions earlier that year.

At the conclusion of our Wednesday meeting, we agreed to return with feedback on the various reform proposals discussed during the meeting. Governor Rauner repeatedly made clear that he has no pre-conditions to a bipartisan agreement on a balanced budget with needed reforms, and he specifically requested your input and ideas. A bipartisan agreement to end this budget impasse will only happen with meaningful negotiations between the legislative leaders and the Governor. Our workers’ compensation reform proposal is a starting point for discussion, not an ultimatum.

So I am surprised to learn that – within hours after the conclusion of our Wednesday meeting – you referred the workers’ compensation reform proposal, House Bill 4248, to the House Labor and Commerce Committee for a hearing on Monday, November 28, 2016. I believe it is premature to hold a hearing on the matter; our goal should be to use the legislation as a starting point for discussion at our Leaders’ meeting that day.

The people of Illinois want us to work together to fix Illinois. We want fair hearings on proposals we craft together in a bi-partisan manner. I urge you to return to the negotiating table with suggestions and to work together in good faith to end the budget impasse. We will succeed by working together on a path towards compromise and mutual agreement on a comprehensive balanced budget with reforms.

Sincerely,

Jim Durkin
House Republican Leader

This is actually pretty tame compared to what I thought it might be, particularly since Madigan posted Durkin’s own bill for a hearing without consulting him first. Madigan often claims, after all, that sponsors decide when their bills get called.

But the Republicans are trying to maintain a positive public face these days and look reasonable. So, we get stuff like this.

…Adding… Some commenters are being deliberately obtuse. This bill was introduced last year. It was a “marker” bill. Nothing more. It was the big ask and not the expected result. Negotiations are now under way. Unless you’re trying to undermine those negotiations, you don’t post a hearing on an old bill.

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:04 am

Comments

“no pre-conditions to a bipartisan agreement on a balanced budget with needed reforms” Um….

Comment by Skeptic Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:06 am
So the Governor thinks that negotiating in good faith to resolve differences is the way to go. Interesting that he doesnt apply that to contract negotiations.

Comment by Union Dues Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:10 am
I guess Leader Durkin thinks I can’t read, or…

===Governor Rauner repeatedly made clear that he has no pre-conditions to a bipartisan agreement on a balanced budget with needed reforms, and he specifically requested your input and ideas.===

“…with needed reforms… ”

That’s preconditions. I can read.

“Governor Rauner repeatedly made clear that he has no pre-conditions to a bipartisan agreement…”

… so that’s “no pre-conditions” and yet…

“…with needed reforms…”

Yep, I can read. with is a pre-condition.

Very disappointing.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:12 am
If the committee approves of Durkin’s wc reform bill, would that count as progress or not?

Comment by anon Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:16 am
Yes, indeed, O.W. Rauner has successfully (for the most part) got people to accept his unreasonable demands as “reforms”. Now his people in the legislature toss that word around as if it does not mean pre-conditions.

Comment by DuPage Dave Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:17 am
Wait, HB 4248 is Durkin’s WC bill? And Durkin doesn’t want it to move?

Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:18 am
= ideas to create jobs, lower property taxes, and improve our schools=

Just one time pair these statements with some data.

Just one flipping time.

To tack on to OW- No pre-conditions? Saying you have to have “something” to get “something” else is exactly the definition of a pre-condition.

Please stop.

Comment by JS Mill Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:21 am
“How dare you post a bill that I filed for a committee hearing! Outrageous!”

Comment by jade me not Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:22 am
If the governor would have actually worked with the legislature, he may have had a balanced budget to start. And maybe would have had a few “reforms” passed as well. When pretty much every single D thinks you are a grass bowl, how in the world do you expect to get anything passed? Blago was a D and the Ds couldn’t stand him. How did that work out for him? You think acting the way you do with an R behind your name helps? Man up, Gov. Propose a balanced budget.

Comment by Ducky LaMoore Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:23 am
===Wait, HB 4248 is Durkin’s WC bill? And Durkin doesn’t want it to move? ===

It’s his bill and he ought to control it.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:23 am
- DuPage Dave -

You’re on it for the most part. Leader Durkin’s response, while “crafted” by his Press Shop, is totally the Rauner Word Jumble’s double-speak mode at the level of “advanced”. There’s little autonomy in the caucuses Rauner controls.

It’s making “normal” the thought of double-speak of “reforms” as an embedded reality and not a pre-condition.

The messaging that this “reality” isn’t speaking, in the same sentence, directly against what the premise is from jump street, the Rauner Crew has won that messaging while Democratic responses continue to miss the obvious openings, and that’s on them, not the press.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:23 am
Fine Rich. Maybe somebody can ask him when he thinks it might be ready for a hearing, lol.

Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:28 am
I mean, WC reform is the Governor’s top priority, you’d think his legislative team would have a bill ready by now, wouldn’t you?

Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:29 am
If it’s Dunkins bill and he doesn’t appear in committee to support it, won’t it stay in committee? And if he filed it, doesn’t he want it to pass?

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:31 am
1.) It sounds like they may have two very different impressions of the meeting. At this point, I’m willing to assume that they implied that this is what they wanted Madigan to do.

2.) They have repeatedly claimed that there are house members that have indicated they support their reforms and are afraid to do so — this gives those house members an opportunity to support the bill.

3.) I’m not an expert, but I presume that the bill can still be changed in committee and on the floor? The only chief difference being that the discussion is more likely to be public.

4.) If they didn’t want him to move the bill forward, they probably shouldn’t have given him a completed piece of legislation.

5.) Man, wouldn’t it be nice if the Governor could do this with a budget?

Comment by Anon Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:31 am
Like, seriously, this dude is complaining about having the bill he wrote to a committee hearing?

If his legislation doesn’t have the ability to pass, at this point, after two years of discussions, he should know what he needs to introduce to get it passed.

Comment by Anon Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:33 am
What? Dunkin doesn’t want the committee to discuss / debate / amend his bill? (Ignoring the back room deals,) I thought that was how it worked, an open exchange of ideas. Guess the precondition is the bill must be passed “as is”.

/partially s

Comment by RNUG Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:35 am
The comments here have become seriously lame, Rich. Some civility and reasonableness from a Republican and the usual characters come out and simultaneously bare their fangs and clutch their pearls. Sorry, Rich, this site is becoming the land of the Madigan trolls. Not cool.

Comment by Bored Chairman Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:42 am
Are you guys aware that Rep. Ken Dunkin and Leader Jim Durkin are not the same person? Kind of hard to take you seriously when you struggle with something so basic.

Comment by Postbot 6000 Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:42 am
Is up down now?

Just checkin’.

Comment by Cheryl 44 Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:46 am
From the House Rule 37: “(b) The Principal Sponsor of a bill controls that bill.”

Comment by My New Handle Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:46 am
Words matter.

“… with needed reforms… ”

Is that a pre-condition? Have the 4 Tops and the Governor agreed to what needed reforms are required, and IF they are required, isn’t that saying pre-conditions then ate already met?

Reading is fundamental.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:47 am
===I mean, WC reform is the Governor’s top priority, you’d think his legislative team would have a bill ready by now, wouldn’t you? ===

They introduced bills last year, like Durkin’s.

But what you’re missing (likely on purpose because I know you’re not an idiot) is that there are ongoing negotiations on this topic. That means Durkin’s bill is no longer operative. Holding a hearing on that bill, introduced last year, is just a partisan game.

So, if you’d rather play partisan games than negotiate, then don’t complain when you don’t get any funding for your issue in the second half of the fiscal year.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:52 am
===he should know what he needs to introduce to get it passed. ===

Another supremely idiotic comment.

Negotiations are under way. You don’t introduce a final bill until negotiations are complete.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:54 am
More likely not to fail publicly, with some preliminary discussions and compromises, during the individual vote gathering process. This is probably what Durkin meant when he called MJM moving Rauner’s own Property Tax language to committee, a “sham bill.”

What many just don’t get, and find hard to accept, is that the public legislative process usually fails, without some “back room” preliminary agreements.

Comment by walker Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:55 am
===What many just don’t get, and find hard to accept, is that the public legislative process usually fails, without some “back room” preliminary agreements. ===

Some do. They just prefer the gamesmanship of scheduling a hearing for a bill that is no longer operative.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:57 am
Beyond the double-speak and to the Bill at hand, it’s important to note that this legislation was, and is, not ready for any movement that can be seen as a passable bill. The work to get this Bill to be a comprised and passable Bill will be made far more difficult by Posting Durkin’s Bill and possibly stifling the opportunity for a “give” on WC that just about anyone saw was there well over a year ago.

So there’s two separate things, for me, here.

The ridiculousness of a statement that in the same sentence contradicts the whole premise…

… and the ridiculousness of the Democrats ignoring a blatently clear path to get a budgetary deal with an obvious avenue in WC that can allow governing to happen.

Communications and gamesmanship abound.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:07 am
Thanks Rich for your comments about “operative” bills. It’s those little process tidbits that nobody talks about that really explain things.

Comment by Honeybear Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:09 am
===That means Durkin’s bill is no longer operative. Holding a hearing on that bill, introduced last year, is just a partisan game.===

It’s also a fine way to let the public know where the GOP wants to start the negotiations, as Durkin himself said in his letter.

Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:18 am
Durkie’s boo hoo letter talks about gettin’ feedback. What better way to get feedback to take back to the negotiatin’ is a committee hearin’. Folks can chat it up, maybe offer amendments and shaszam take a vote.
Seems like a perfectly logical idea. Unless you are BigBrain and Durkie and never want to face puttin’+30 votes on the tax hike.

Comment by Annonin' Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:19 am
Durkin is being a bit hyper-sensitive. Committees can be cancelled, postponed, and his bill can’t actually be called in committee unless he wants it to be.

But, posting requirements require giving the public advance notice.

Here are a few tips, Leader Durkin: start be telling Madigan that you wish that the general election had had a much different tone. That you don’t actually believe, as ads implied, that he is corruptly benefitting from his property tax business. That you understand that both he and you are under a lot of outside pressure from citizen’s groups, but that doesn’t mean we have to turn the legislative process into a pressure cooker, And regardless of what he decides to do, you are gonna try to live by the Golden Rule.

Speaking of which, it is absurd of you to loudly complain about the Speaker negotiating in public when your side is negotiating in public. Tell Rauner’s team if they sincerely want to get a deal done, they need to stop sabotaging the process by issuing press releases, sending out formal announcements, publicly riling up the unions with their silly Volunteerism Day, etc. When you start public posturing, the other side almost always responds with public posturing. The next time you want to complain to Madigan about a bill being posted, don’t send a letter to Capitolfax, have your chief of staff call his chief of staff and say things like “not really helpful,” or call home yourself.

Comment by Art O'Deal Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:22 am
Every smart lobbyist will tell you that you start with a bill that is extreme, and then you negotiate and compromise to a reasonable end result. I’m sure that Durkin filed legislation at the extreme, and for the Speaker to suddenly call it for a vote is disrespective of the bipartisan process that has been the State House norm ever since the Speaker was sworn in as a young State Representative.

Comment by Not It Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:22 am
If that was true, Annonin’, you woulda used a shell bill. Y’all took hours and hours of testimony last year during a committee of the whole.

Your argument doesn’t hold water unless you really do have an amendment planned. In which case, you should put it on your own party’s bill.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:23 am
–Without reforms that spur economic growth, increase employment, and bring new tax revenue through growth, Illinois will continue to suffer from structural budget deficits year after year.–

LOL, that letter wasn’t to Madigan, it was to the media.

So how many years can they trot out this boiler-plate without even attempting to back it up? It’s just to be accepted as a matter of faith, like a cult?

GOMB can do whiz-bang work, projecting out 14 years the alleged economic and fiscal impact of a progressive income tax to the penny.

But coming up on two years now, nothing but crickets on the governor’s legislative agenda, his only priorities?

If the numbers backed up the governor’s agenda on growth, jobs and revenue, they’d be selling it like crazy. Rauner would put millions behind it on the TV box.

Obviously, they don’t. So all this economic and fiscal damage is being done for partisan political reasons, not the greater good.

The backlog of bills passed $10 billion the other day. It will be $14 billion by the end of the fiscal. It was $4.4 billion when Rauner took office.

And that is not even on the governor’s radar.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:37 am
“…a balanced budget alongside…”. I guess I’m missing the budget details that are being discussed alongside this WC discussion. This WC discussion sure looks like a precondition to me and as such should be a non-starter.

Comment by PublicServant Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:39 am
Capt. Fax you are strugglin’ mightily to make BooHoo Durkie and BigBrain look like a real guys. The house passed a bill in 2015 — puts heat on the insurance companies. They are the last untouched hustlers here before the workers get screwed.
The hearin’ seems like a great idea. BigBrain could assembly the SuperStars and explain if we could just lower median incomes by $9K or so our biz jobs would soar through the roof.
Actually that won’t happen, but the 1%ers will have some more jingle in the jeans.
We are sure Durkie & BigBrain appreciate your spirited defense.

Comment by Annonin' Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:54 am
===We are sure Durkie & BigBrain appreciate your spirited defense===

Y’all are sure touchy since the election.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:57 am
=== Some commenters are being deliberately obtuse.===

More than “some”.

This is screwin’ up an issue both sides are predisposed to doing something about that could be a win on both sides. Makes you kinda wonder what the endgame is on the side that throws all the bricks and continues to cry about broken glass.

For some it is a “game”. How sad.

Comment by A guy Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:59 am
The Speaker made a statement which seems to show his “stance” on the Republican’s desire for further W/C negotiations. A lot of water has run under the bridge since that particular bill was intro’d. Durkin wisely will not try to move this bill out of committee only to meet a spectacular public demise on the floor. It’s not soup yet. There is a lot of pieces that need to be negotiated but not in a committee hearing.

Comment by Madigan's Lapdog Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:00 am
If the HDems were remotely serious about taking this to Rauner and Durkin, they’d come up with 21st Century means to seem engaged in moving their own positions to be discussed either here or by the Press Corps.

What a shame.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:02 am
Also, I have written in the past that some sort of insurance regulations are needed to make sure employers are getting their savings.

It’s not my fault that you aren’t able to get anyone else to write about it. /snark

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:03 am
Playing the obtuse angle?

Entirely with you Rich.

Just trying to explain a “sham” bill as a passive-aggressive tactic. Durkin’s reacting appropriately, (some boilerplate phrases aside).

Comment by walker Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:06 am
No ultimatums, huh? The term gaslighting has come up a lot in regards to national GOP strategy, but Rauner & Co. have been using it to great extent here, as well.

Comment by Sangamo Better Blues Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:18 am
I guess I’m one of the obtuse commenters, but it is not deliberate. If Durkin does not want open debate and possible amendments made to this bill, AND he didn’t want a chance for the Rules Committee at some time to move it forward, why not table it withdraw it until negotiations were done? Aren’t those options, rather than all of this gamesmanship possibilities on BOTH sides?

Comment by Anon221 Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:19 am
===why not table it withdraw it until negotiations were done?===

Tabling a bill that’s been languishing in Rules for over a year is not exactly a thing.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:21 am
Then what about withdrawing it and starting over? I’m not trying to be argumentative, a lot of the process is still confusing to me even though I am a bit familiar with the process. I’m not a chess master- better at checkers.

Comment by Anon221 Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:25 am
===Then what about withdrawing it and starting over? ===

It’s his bill. If he chooses not to move his bill that’s essentially withdrawing it. By forcing the bill to a hearing the Dems are playing silly reindeer games.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:26 am
To put this into some context, would Madigan force Exelon’s bill up for a vote before Exelon was finished with negotiations? Heck no. Why? Because that would go against protocol.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:28 am
==Because that would go against protocol.==

Hope I don’t get deleted or worse, but Protocol and Proctology seem like not too distant word cousins in the GA, don’t they?

Comment by A guy Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:44 am
Mercy, violations of “protocol.” That sounds serious. Is it, in any real way that impacts people?

How does it rate with the very real impacts on people of the continuing violations of Article VIII, Section 2? Does Rep. Durkin’s fee-fees trump them?

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:53 am
Smart move on Madigans part given RAuners history of one sided negotiating.

Comment by Liberty Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 12:02 pm
“no pre-conditions to a bipartisan agreement on a balanced budget with needed reforms”

ok then lets negotiate a budget now and after the budget is complete lets continue to work on these reform ideas.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 12:17 pm
Rich -

Is there actually some means to move the bill out of committee or even call it up for a vote if the Sponsor isn’t there?

Comment by Art O'Deal Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 1:06 pm