Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: This Is Illinois
Next Post: “Right To Know” Is Wrong For Illinois. Vote No On SB1502
Posted in:
* The bill passed by a vote of 114-0. From Speaker Madigan’s office…
Speaker Michael J. Madigan issued the following statement Monday after the House voted to pass Senate Bill 8, a package of reforms negotiated by Gov. Bruce Rauner to help streamline acquisition of goods and services, reducing costs to the state:
“Today’s passage of a procurement reform package requested by Governor Rauner is another instance in which House Democrats have followed through on our commitment to work cooperatively with the governor to reduce the cost of government and address the issues facing our state.
“This bill is the result of negotiation between legislators and the administration. In January, I directed the House State Government Administration Committee to thoroughly evaluate the governor’s procurement proposal, and that committee approved the governor’s plan with bipartisan support.
“The biggest issue facing Illinois remains the state budget. As the governor continues to hold other aspects of his agenda as pre-conditions to his cooperation on a full balanced budget, I renew my request that the governor immediately focus on working with House Democrats to find common ground and pass a budget for our state. Today’s agreement is proof that House Democrats are willing to make compromises to move Illinois forward.”
The bill is SB 8.
*** UPDATE 1 *** From Eleni Demertzis in the governor’s office…
Tiny, incremental steps to change our broken system are better than nothing, but what the House passed today is far from what is needed.
While Speaker Madigan’s Democrats continue to argue over how big of a tax hike to impose on the people of Illinois, the governor remains focused on enacting real and lasting property tax relief.
The governor has previously said that his procurement reforms could save a half-billion dollars a year. I’ve asked for some clarification.
*** UPDATE 2 *** The answer to my question…
Because they’ve removed the most important structural changes from the bill, we can’t give any estimate on savings but we know it won’t be anywhere near that number.
*** UPDATE 3 *** From Steve Brown…
If the Governor is saying the differences between the Senate bill and the House amendment won’t result in savings, here’s the list of changes. None of these should reduce the number, and there was a claim SB8 as it passed the House would save $70M a year [the same claim made in the Senate].
* The House amendment requires agencies to submit a list of exempt contracts to the CPO. The purpose of this is to increase transparency and establish one location where members and the public can find information about exempt contracts. This was not included in the bill as it passed the Senate.
* As it passed the Senate, the bill exempted from the Procurement Code (1) public private partnerships, and (2) food purchased for commercial resale by public universities. This is not included in the House amendment.
* As it passed the Senate, the bill removes the 90-day cap on emergency procurements for construction at the request of Capital Development Board. This is not included in the House amendment.
* As it passed the Senate, the bill gives agencies authority to use master contracts, interpreted without CPO oversight. The House amendment clarifies the CPO has authority and allows a CPO to void, ratify, or affirm a joint purchase that was in violation of the law under the Governmental Joint Purchasing Act. This language was initially requested by House GOP members.
* As it passed the Senate, the bill repeals the procurement reporting requirement. The House amendment clarifies this language, but does not repeal it.
* As it passed the Senate, the bill creates a Special Committee to review procurement laws and recommend improvements in (i) efficiency, (ii) minority, female, and veterans contracting, and (iii) Illinois preference purchasing. The House amendment does not remove the General Assembly from procurement discussions, but does includes a committee solely focused on minority, female, and veterans contracting.
* As it passed the Senate, the bill allows universities to enter a lease for 30 years if the lessor has to make more than $100K in improvements. This is not included in the House amendment.
* As it passed the Senate, the bill includes the use of prequalified pools for all areas of procurement. This is not included in the House amendment.
* As it passed the Senate, the bill allows universities to directly contract, without CPO oversight, with the Midwest Higher Education Cooperation Act for computer and technology equipment, or services, and insurance. The House amendment allows these purchases with CPO oversight.
* As it passed the Senate, the bill changes the Small Business Act to allow the state to count contractors and sub-contractors toward the goal of awarding 10% of total contract dollars to small businesses. This makes it easier to meet the 10% goal. The House amendment does not include subcontractors and moves the current requirements of the Small Business Act into the Procurement Code. The intent is to urge the State to enter into a greater number of contracts with small businesses.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 29, 17 @ 12:37 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: This Is Illinois
Next Post: “Right To Know” Is Wrong For Illinois. Vote No On SB1502
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The Dems continue to fail at messaging.
At what point will this be the swamping message to Rauner?
It won’t.
Rauner isn’t feeling the pressure. Between the Trib’s Edit Page, the Ads, Leader Durkin, INN/IPI, Proft…
This statement falls on deaf ears.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 29, 17 @ 12:45 pm
“Not feelin’ pressure”
Is that why he emerges from hidin’ to demand tax breaks for 1%ers about 3 times a day.
Comment by Annonin' Monday, May 29, 17 @ 12:50 pm
- Anonnin’ -
Durkin also continues to say things that mathematically just don’t add up. And yet, there’s no pressure on Durkin, Rauner, any Raunerite to seem honest, even to math.
As long as it keeps workin’, Rauner will trot out his ridiculousness.
If anything, the pressure is on to keep the silliness, which you’re not wrong, but not the pressure to find that budget agreement(?)
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 29, 17 @ 12:57 pm
House: unanimously passes Gov priority.
House Dems: see, we are willing to work with the Governor.
Gov’s response: the Dems refuse to give us all of our demands unilaterally and upfront!
Rational people: that’s not how negotiations work.
Comment by The Captain Monday, May 29, 17 @ 2:44 pm
Maybe he doesn’t realize that this bill will speed up his ability to sign all these crony lease deals for warehouse space.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, May 29, 17 @ 3:03 pm
The Rauner Camp, as they always do, misses the point. The Speaker wanted to point out that common sense reforms both sides can live with are achievable. All Rauner can say is ‘meh’. Let’s face it, nothing will ever be enough for him.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Monday, May 29, 17 @ 3:04 pm
Movin’ the goalpost.
Comment by Thoughts Matter Monday, May 29, 17 @ 3:08 pm
Much of the “savings” is attributed to sole sourcing health care contracts. For the universities, any savings is not a benefit directly tied to GRF/EAF programs but for locally held university funds. U of I stands to benefit the most in these savings. The other public universities really won’t save much.
Comment by Just Sayin ..... Monday, May 29, 17 @ 3:15 pm
===they’ve removed the most important structural changes from the bill===
It passed 114-0 so there’s that.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Monday, May 29, 17 @ 3:26 pm
==the governor remains focused on enacting real and lasting property tax relief.==
As Rich’s comments have reflected, property tax relief is so popular that its effects, what it will do to schools, is ignored.
Or somehow Springfield will provide the funds to make up for property tax relief (or for a property tax freeze).
DEMS are losing (by not telling the truth about a property tax freeze, again, and again and again), by the House passing a property tax freeze previously, and by allowing Rauner to win.
Comment by winners and losers Monday, May 29, 17 @ 3:27 pm
===It passed 114-0===
There is often a directly inverse relationship between how much a bill does and how many votes it receives.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 29, 17 @ 3:28 pm
With this Administration, bipartisan support for legislation is no longer good enough. It has to be tripartisan. The problem is no one ever knows what will satisfy that third cog.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Monday, May 29, 17 @ 3:29 pm
==*** UPDATE 2 *** The answer to my question…
Because they’ve removed the most important structural changes from the bill, we can’t give any estimate on savings but we know it won’t be anywhere near that number. ==
What “structural changes” were removed? The bill is nearly identical to what passed the Senate.
Comment by badabum Monday, May 29, 17 @ 4:03 pm
To the UpdateX2,
===Because they’ve removed the most important structural changes from the bill, we can’t give any estimate on savings but we know it won’t be anywhere near that number.===
… and yet, the Administration is unsure about both, let’s say the 1.4% or $500+ million and the Bill passed by the House.
I notice they rarely give true numbers, as it’s easier to say “it’s not enough” without true measure.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 29, 17 @ 4:21 pm
On showing your work:
Steve Brown: 1
Govs Office: 0
Comment by The Captain Monday, May 29, 17 @ 4:34 pm
To Steve Brown,
I thank you for your response.
It’s important to the messaging and educating of voters to be, given the misinformation the administration decides to pretend they have, and then message out as packaged gibberish.
I hope that this can be condensed further into a sound bite to counter the Rauner Word Jumble…
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 29, 17 @ 4:43 pm
From a small business standpoint, the House approach appears to have some serious process flaws.
In the House version, it appears that everything gets codified into the State’s Procurement Code and under CPO oversight. So we will have more hoops to jump through.
Looks to me like this legislation is more of an attempt to ensure there is minimal, or no contracted ‘outsourcing’ of services outside of government employees.
In any case, this doesn’t look like a positive step for directing more state business to small businesses.
Comment by Anon Downstate Monday, May 29, 17 @ 6:36 pm
==- Anon Downstate - Monday, May 29, 17 @ 6:36 pm:
….
In the House version, it appears that everything gets codified into the State’s Procurement Code and under CPO oversight. So we will have more hoops to jump through. ==
READ THE BILL. It’s the opposite. This makes it easier to do business.
Comment by badabum Monday, May 29, 17 @ 7:06 pm
Of course the governor’s office can estimate what if any savings there would be.
Why lie about that? It’s crazy. Or normal, depending on where you sit.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 29, 17 @ 8:10 pm