Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Rep. Riley: Let’s move on

Posted in:

Illinois

* We talked extensively yesterday about the Tuesday working group meeting on local government mandate relief and consolidation. Rep. Mark Batinick (R-Plainfield), you will recall, said of the Democrats: “I saw all the telltale signs of a party not wanting get a deal completed.” Rep. Chris Welch (D-Hillside) claimed: “The message I heard loud and clear was that in order for the State to get a budget, the General Assembly better cave to the Governor’s demands.” Sen. Andy Manar agreed with that take. Welch also said the governor’s office had canceled future meetings. The governor’s people claimed everything in Welch’s e-mail was false and said there was no point in having future meetings until the Democrats were prepared to bring their counter-offers.

Got all that?

* This is from Rep. Al Riley (D-Olympia Fields), an assistant majority leader…

Rich,

I read the post the other day about the Tuesday meeting at the Thompson Center and I wanted to add my perspective to it. First of all, it seems like much is being made about the tenor and tone of the meeting. Frankly speaking, in my opinion, the tone of the meeting was not that much different than one would observe in a typical committee hearing. I would not characterize this meeting as “contentious” or one of “stonewalling” or any other related term, at least when I was there. This is even when doctrinal points were being made on both sides. So, my characterization of the overall meeting was more collegial then I would have expected.

Myself and another Democratic colleague were there for the Local Government Consolidation meeting. It was scheduled to start at 4:30 p.m. I got to the conference room at 4:00 p.m. The earlier scheduled Unfunded Mandates meeting was still going on. That meeting went on until approximately 5:15 p.m.; way over its scheduled ending time. Though many things may have been discussed prior to my arrival at 4:00 p.m, it seemed as though issues of collective bargaining and a few mandates issues were being talked about. During the meeting, one of the attendees from the Democratic side commented on untoward “tweets” being made about our meetings, e.g, lack of cooperation by the Dems, etc. I think a reasonable person might have some pause and concern about statements like that being made about our meeting while it was still going on. At that point there was some pointed statements made, but even then, I would not characterize anything that was said as necessarily being contentious. We moved on and had some good discussion.

At or around 5:15, it was said that because of the time and distance that some people had to come, we would suspend the meeting and reconvene at another date to talk about local government consolidation. I stated that we were all there and to not have a discussion about the other agenda topic was not particularly fair. We had a document of about 30 different bullet points of bills and measures dealing with both mandates and government consolidation provided to us before the meeting. Government consolidation subsumed about 12 or 13 of the roughly 30 bullet points. My request was that we give Consolidation at least the 45 minutes originally allocated to it and discuss those 12 or so measures, than we could always reconvene and expand on what we discussed. Everyone agreed, and that’s what we did.

We went over each of the 12 points and we had some very good conversations about them. At no time, did the conversation get testy. We had some differences of opinion, but frankly that may have been on 4 out of the 12 measures discussed. Most of the differences we did have were technical in nature; fairly easy to resolve in true negotiations. At about 6:00 p.m., there was discussion about next steps and possibly calling another meeting. There was some banter about people having to go home to babies or go to holiday events. I shook hands with everyone and we left.

The two GOP members of the committee I know very well. We don’t share the same ideology on many things of course, but there are some that we do. I worked on bills and issues with them. Representative Batinick and I have had lively discussions about things in the past but at the same time, we have worked on major pieces of legislation, been in committee hearings and also forums outside of the Capitol.

I would characterize my relationship with Representative Batinick and the other Republican member who was at the meeting as being personally cordial. So again, I think that all of these negotiations in public and PSYOPS shots across the bow do not lend themselves to what should be the goal of these hearings.

Everyone who was there knows exactly what happened. There were about 15 people on the teleconference down in Springfield. And there were 7 people at the room at the Thompson Center. All of us have our reputations and track records on how we operate and how we categorize things. And, unlike in Rashomon whereby a number of individual people saw an incident from their particular point of view, 22 or 23 people were in that meeting, and saw and heard everything that happened.

Lets move on, keep our eye on the prize and do what we’re supposed to do - create a fiscally responsible budget for the people of the State, focused on equity and not so much on ideology.

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 12:59 pm

Comments

Bravo!

Comment by illinoised Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 1:04 pm
Um, collective bargaining?

Comment by Casual observer Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 1:05 pm
So talk budget and only budget…and you can have the prize

Comment by Wondering Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 1:06 pm
If a “fiscally responsible budget” was the “prize” it would have been done 18 months ago.

Why persist in the fiction that a budget is the source of contention? It’s wholly wrong and misleading to the public.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 1:06 pm
Nice to hear from someone not affiliated with any of Rauner noise machine.

Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 1:07 pm
In other news, Rep Riley will be added to the BossMadigan list in 3, 2, …

Comment by Ratso Rizzo Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 1:10 pm
===Though many things may have been discussed prior to my arrival at 4:00 p.m, it seemed as though issues of collective bargaining and a few mandates issues were being talked about.===

This is really important to trust.

The Administration made clear, their take was Welch was “everything” was false.

If collective bargaining was discussed, why the “everything”?

This is not about the budget, it is about the falsehood that the budget is not being held up until collective bargaining is at the least watered down, maybe to nothing.

The prize is the Turnaround Agenda, the budget is the “reward” for the Rauner wants. That budget may include a raising of taxes, and then what will Rauner do, and who will Rauner blame.

I appreciate the note, I really do, but just that simple grab let’s me take pause to who may be “more honest” the Dems or the Administration, and the prize is phony unless it’s seen as it’s always been, the Turnaround Agenda.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 1:13 pm
I’m still confused. This doesn’t help.

The idea that “collective bargaining” was even talked about seems to be the point of disagreement. What, exactly, is there to talk about about “collective bargaining?”

That AFSCME be restricted in their ability to bargain for certain issues?

That CTU be restricted?

This “collective bargaining” hush-hush, wink-wink thing seems to be the elephant in the room.

What’s the real issue here? What is it that Rauner is so intent to forbid or enforce with respect to collective bargaining?

And why won’t anyone actually talk about the specifics? Why is it always, “Yeah, we talked about collective bargaining.” Or: “Yeah, there are some collective bargaining issues here.”

What are those issues? And why is this so incredibly private?

If Rauner wants to suggest restrictions, then suggest them — and run on them during this never-ending campaign (the Bob Dylan equivalent of the tour that never ends — the tour that started, oh, around 1993 and continues to this day).

Comment by Macbeth Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 1:28 pm
So OW while Rich is out, do you think he decorates his Christmas tree with painted egg ornaments? Like Christmas Easter eggs? Two posts today make me wonder if there will more of those eggs on the south side of the tree.

Comment by Honeybear Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 1:35 pm
>Lets move on, keep our eye on the prize and do what we’re supposed to do - create a fiscally responsible budget for the people of the State, focused on equity and not so much on ideology.

It’s a nice sentiment, but I don’t see any kind of statesmanship getting us closer to a stable, balanced budget. Rauner has had his way with things since he took office, with the beast being squeezed and the leverage of debt increasing every day. Rauner won’t budget until Democrats either capitulate or attract public support which will make him worried about his re-election and ability to increase his control over the legislature. I hate to sound like I’m in support of political games, but this stopped being a game a long time ago.

Comment by Earnest Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 1:37 pm
- Honeybear -

I can’t speak to the holiday decorations or traditions Rich has, or that I’ve seen any holiday decorations Ruch has had or has at out.

If there is an Easter Egg in your comment, know I haven’t captured it, a reflection on me, not you.

I do wonder if Oscar wears a Santa or Elf hat. He’d look cute with a hat.

OW

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 1:43 pm
To shift perspective, it seems that they might be making real progress on creating the right tools and environment for local govt consolidation. That’s a good thing.

Comment by walker Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 1:45 pm
The other issue — and we might have already passed this point — is that Rauner can’t realistically settle on a budget during this first 4-year term.

As soon as — if, if — he settles, then everyone will say, “Wait … two years of no budget and he settled because X? We suffered through 2 years of this because of X?”

Whatever X is — term limits, minor local consolidation, etc — doesn’t really matter. What matters is that X will be the thing that settles it, seals it, and delivers an actual budget.

Unless he settles for some unicorn like: “I settled on a budget and created 250,000 jobs — immediately, like, within 24 hours of settling” — there’s no real carrot that makes this strange stick worth it.

What I think legislators — and schools and social services — should realize (if they haven’t already) is that there’s no political possibility at this point in Rauner’s for a budget. It simply won’t happen. It’s stopgaps all the way down — and probably into Rauner’s second term (if the dems still have a majority).

Rauner — as impotent as he is as a statesman — cannot have a budget. Now — or in his second term. If he does, he settles — and settling (as we see) is no way to corral voters. What gets voters — and cash — is saying everything else is status quo and no, I won’t settle for anything. Anything.

Comment by Macbeth Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 2:03 pm
Like Linus meeting with Matsui. Honestly I tried

Do you think Rauner has succeeded in splitting off Riley and Ford plus other members of the black caucus? They being the two Easter eggs rich hung up today. I have noticed a big push lately again. Has the Dunkin insurgency finally taken root?

Comment by Honeybear Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 2:04 pm
WWalker….are you for real? They cant get their own act together. Consolidation is code for we want big government. What’s it to ‘em?

Comment by Wondering Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 2:05 pm
===Do you think Rauner has succeeded in splitting off Riley and Ford plus other members of the black caucus?===

Dunno. Short, honest answer.

I will say this, the Governor has done a good job at times to find issues, like criminal justice on the governmental, and forcing a hand on Madigan with the political, to have a commonality with groups, like the Black Caucus, and work those connections and bridges for micro agreement(s)

All governors have to do that, Rauner uses the political one very much in the face of everyone.

Until I can see, in the “obvious” that this is a prolonged connection beyond single issues on either side of the political or governmental, it will be what it is. It’s a governor doing what governors do, because the Big Chair can do many things, which is why it’s so coveted.

The next GA? We will see a GA without Dunkin, without Franks, but also with 4 more Democrats on that side of the aisle.

Can’t say it won’t be different, it already will be.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 2:22 pm
“4 less Democrats”

Dunno why spell check thought misspelling more equaled less, lol

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 2:25 pm
Ocean’s 12 reference, Honeybear? Well played. Well played indeed.

Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 2:31 pm
- 47th Ward -

First Paulie, now “this”? Now you’re just piling on to mock me!

“You broke my heart”.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 2:38 pm
47th. Honestly I think of that scene so often when the gurus are really getting into it. I am an earnest and sincere learner. I try to keep up with the big kids. I watched the Godfather movies with an eye to the loyalty/betrayal narratives. But alas, I must be content content to watch the big kids from my window. Lol. Rich knows how much I try. “Now now little Honeybear, he says. Let’s keep that comment inside the house. Let the big kids enjoy themselves. I have high hopes this year for the Golden Horseshoe for Commentor with the most posts never allowed to be posted! I’ve got that one nailed!

Comment by Honeybear Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 3:00 pm
===Do you think Rauner has succeeded in splitting off Riley===

Oh, come on. Where in that e-mail do you see any pro-Rauner stuff? Plus, the man is a member of the House Democratic leadership team.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 3:51 pm