Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Mendoza blasts Rauner, dings legislators
Next Post: Reporting on Illinois from the New Zealand left
Posted in:
* Brian Mackey is in St. Clair County today covering a court hearing about a case involving human service providers who want to be paid without an appropriation, just like state workers, who also have a contract with the state…
The plaintiffs in that case include groups that provide services to people with disabilities, mental health problems and the like. (It also includes the social service organization run by Illinois First Lady Diana Rauner.) They argue that because the Rauner administration entered into contracts with them, they too should be getting paid — with or without a state budget.
* Follow along with ScribbleLive…
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 2:14 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Mendoza blasts Rauner, dings legislators
Next Post: Reporting on Illinois from the New Zealand left
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
== Plaintiffs say because Gov. Rauner and agencies entered into contracts knowing there weren’t appropriations, there’s no sovereign immunity. ==
Nice to see them making the “deliberate fraud” argument.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 3:11 pm
The Court of Claims argument is odd. Even if the Court of Claims ruled in their favor they still aren’t going to be paid without an appropriation for the Court of Claims award.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 3:25 pm
They shouldn’t be paid until there’s a budget. The state constitution should trump contracts with the state. Likewise for state workers. Every time a judge intervenes to “protect” someone it just lets off the pressure for Springfield to do something.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 3:34 pm
Downstate. There is a separate clause in the Constitution that says the state should not impair contracts.
Comment by Pawn Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 4:15 pm
Pawn — the contracts clause could prevent the state from enacting a provision prohibiting payments without appropriations and trying to apply that provision to a pre-existing contract. It wouldn’t prevent such a clause from applying to any contract entered into after it became effective. The “deliberate fraud” argument is a little shakey, too, because the existence of the requirement for appropriations is hardly a secret and is actually mentioned in many contracts.
Comment by Whatever Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 5:17 pm
Odd that LeChien didn’t wear a robe. Was the AC broken or does he just not take the matter seriously?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 7:08 pm