Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Social media isn’t real life
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** IDPH stops reporting historical nursing home COVID-19 outbreak data
Posted in:
* A PR pal sent this to his clients at about 11:30 this morning. I updated it with some cannabis info…
Done
SB 2099 — $5 billion borrowing for budget. Passed both houses.
SB 2541 – Hospital assessment. Passed both houses.
HB 2455 – Labor-business agreement on worker’s comp/unemployment. Passed both houses.
SB 1863 – Election omnibus, including vote by mail. Passed both houses.
SB 1569 – Education omnibus. Passed both houses.
HB 2096 – Local government omnibus. Passed both chambers.
SB 471 – Various COVID response measures. Passed both chambers.
SB 1864 – Healthcare omnibus. Passed both chambers. [Amendment 6 filed in House - strips out most telehealth language.]
SB 516 – Gaming. Passed both chambers.
SB 2135 – Legislative oversight of Governor’s reopening plans. Passed both chambers. [Amendment passed to remove remote legislating, FOIA provisions, etc.]
HB 357 - BIMP. Passed both chambers.
HB 64 – Capital plan reappropriations bill.
SB 264 – Budget. Passed both chambers.
Not done
SB 671 HA2 and HA3 - Telehealth bill. Passed House, still needs Senate vote. [Introduced after Healthcare omnibus bill was stripped of most telehealth language because of insurance industry opposition in the Senate]
SB 3066 – Rep. Ramirez rent relief/housing. Pending in House, then needs Senate vote.
HB 123 – Cannabis. Pending in House, then needs Senate vote. [Likely not moving.]
HB 2924 – Cannabis. Passed Senate, now needs House vote. [But the governor has a real problem with the language.]
If you have any additions, subtractions, updates etc., let me know in comments or via text or email. Thanks!
…Adding… There’s been some harsh “lobbying” by a leftist group on behalf of Rep. Ramirez’s legislation…
The idea that $2,500 in campaign contributions will “buy” the vote of a pretty quality legislator is a bit much.
From Rep. Ramirez…
I’ve been working the last eight weeks to help Illinoisans not to get thrown out of their homes and making sure that tenants and landlords have relief during this crisis. I knew nothing about this flyer as I’ve been focused on working collaboratively with all my colleagues to pass the most substantive relief for all during this time.
…Adding… Pool report…
And for those of you waiting for SB3066 (the rent relief measure), it will not come up in the Senate today, I’m told. Stakeholders and lawmakers could not reach an agreement. Instead, check the budget for an increased allocation to IDHA, who will administer a program to offer related relief to renters and homeowners.
posted by Rich Miller
Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 11:49 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Social media isn’t real life
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** IDPH stops reporting historical nursing home COVID-19 outbreak data
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
With all due respect to Rep. Ramirez, she was given every opportunity to pass this legislation and burned countless bridges along the way. Attacking Leadership and one of the more respected members of the Democratic caucus is a quick ticket to Scott Drury land. Maybe, if there’s a bill requiring this kind of heavy lift, they’d pick someone much more qualified and experienced than Ramirez to carry it. From the cheap sheets, she’s another in a long-list of people who really don’t have a clue about the legislative process and carry some bark but zero bite.
Comment by Wire Tap Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 12:02 pm
SB 2135 includes a MAJOR FOIA exemption. It would allow public bodies to ignore any request due after March 9 until 30 days after the effective date of the bill.
Comment by Watcher of the Skies Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 12:03 pm
This was horribly played by a freshman legislator who could have really benefited from the wisdom and skill of two successful and ethical female members. To attack their character and reputation is a pretty dumb way to get a bill passed.
Comment by curious ending Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 12:08 pm
===It would allow public bodies to ignore any request due after March 9 until 30 days after the effective date of the bill===
Not quite.
Notwithstanding any provision of
18 law or rule to the contrary, no public body shall be considered
19 in violation of this Act for failing to respond within the time
20 prescribed by this Act to any request due on or after March 9,
21 2020 and prior to June 1, 2020, provided the public body
22 provides a response by the later of 30 days after the effective
23 date of this amendatory Act of the 101st General Assembly or
24 the time prescribed by this Act for the relevant request.
Comment by Rich Miller Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 12:11 pm
=== The idea that $2,500 in campaign contributions will “buy” the vote of a pretty quality legislator is a bit much.===
Quality legislators are not moved by dollars, but they are moved by the quality of the argument… and the 60/30 signature reality to legislation on the real idea of effective governing.
If that money premise held, what, get $2,500 for 90 folks (60/30) and be done with it?
Huh?
Comment by Oswego Willy Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 12:13 pm
To Ramirez’s response… saying you didn’t know about the flyer and denouncing it as a false attack on your colleagues are two very different things. Her response is disappointing but not surprising.
Comment by Centennial Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 12:17 pm
557 (HA #2).
Comment by Lil Squeezy Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 12:21 pm
Re Rep. Ramirez bill — this bill was cooked up in a mad scientist’s laboratory and never seriously vetted until this week. Legislation that passes quickly is always full of unintended consequences. Instead of blaming legislators trying to fix problems, they should try to fix the problems.
Comment by Just Me 2 Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 12:22 pm
A sampling of elected officials and organizations affiliated with “Right to Recovery” from an Action Network webpage:
State Representative Will Guzzardi, State Representative Teresa Mah, State Senator Robert Peters, State Representative Delia Ramirez, State Senator Celina Villanueva.
Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, Chicago Teachers Union, Illinois Nurses Association, SEIU Healthcare.
Maybe some of those reps and senators will want to chime in on where they stand on their colleagues under such garish attack.
Comment by Moe Berg Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 12:28 pm
I received a text last night from the Chicago Housing Initiative Coalition. Given who’s district I live in these people are throwing money away.
Comment by twowaystreet Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 12:29 pm
===Not quite.===
Rich, help me out here - I’m not seeing a difference with my short description. Public bodies would have until 30 days after this bill is signed to respond to any FOIA request due March 9 or later. That would put it around June 24 or 25.
That’s going to sweep up any request sent around March 2 or later right up until today or so (since there’s a June 1 cutoff).
Comment by Watcher of the Skies Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 12:41 pm
BGA and others getting all up & arms about the FOIA exemption is typical ivory tower grandstanding.
Units of local government have been inundated with FOIA requests during this time-frame. Basically a bunch of gadflys sitting at home, bored & trying to make themselves feel relevant.
FOIA officers and other government staff responding to FOIAs are mainly working from home on very short notice. It requires them to email other staff whom are also working from home, while home-schooling their kids and trying to stay healthy. The documents sought are often hard copies that are in files at the actual office.
Is it really worth it that your request is so important that you want a government employee to have to go into the office to dig up your request ?
Many of the work-at-home government employees didn’t have access to the network, don’t have scanners, printers, etc.
Typical arrogance from the “good government,” types.
Your going to get your response. It’s just going to take a bit longer.
Comment by Helm Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 12:53 pm
@Helm
In your rush to malign “good government” types, you decided to abandon the truth.
Public bodies that do not currently have access to documents in closed offices can (and are) using existing provisions of the law to delay responses. As far as I know, no one has demanded FOIA officers risk their health to respond to a request that requires unnecessary travel.
Comment by Watcher of the Skies Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 1:24 pm
Anything affiliated with United Working Families is sloppy and thoughtless. They just don’t work smart, they surround themselves with an echo chamber, and they get little done. However, Rep. Ramirez could’ve given a better response than to play dumb. She’s very well informed about and connected to UWF and the Right to Recovery Coalition.
That said, I think some of Springfield isn’t used to left-of-the-left and their approach so I can understand why this is jarring. Similarly, the left-of-the-left do not understand Springfield and what works and how it works. At the end of the day I’m not knocking them for trying. They’re not afraid to say things that lobbyists and other decades-old Springfield types are afraid to say. Maybe one day they’ll be effective.
Comment by The Most Anonymous Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 1:25 pm
@Helm you call them “gadflys” I call them investigative reporters doing a public service that mainstream, predominately white media with corporate overlords and word limits and constant content pressures can’t take the time to do. Like this story driven by Mauricio Peña at Block Club:
https://www.bettergov.org/news/email-strings-show-city-officials-warned-of-health-risks-before-little-village-demolition/
Comment by La Dictadora Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 1:31 pm
First came the “Eastern Bloc.” Now we’ve apparently got the “Bernie Bloc.” Right to Recovery, Ramirez, UWF, and Co.
Comment by Chatham Resident Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 1:37 pm
@Rich
And they just extended past June 1 with a new amendment from Burke. Now would apply to any response due 15 days after effective date.
Comment by Watcher of the Skies Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 1:49 pm
Section 15 of the Ramirez bill is likely unconstitutional.
“However, when the legislature has encroached upon a fundamentally judicial prerogative, we have not hesitated to protect the courts authority. This court has found that a statute which purported to require judges to state their reasons for imposing a particular sentence violated the separation of powers clause. People v. Davis 93 ill.2d 155.
See also:
P v. John Michael Joseph Ill sup Ct no. 61826
And P v. Jackson 69 ill2nd 252 sup Ct rule trumps public act
Filings are controlled by Supreme Court rule. These new passages directly conflict with those rules. The Rules trump. Sorry for the pun.
Comment by Miso Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 1:49 pm
@Helm === GA and others getting all up & arms about the FOIA exemption is typical ivory tower grandstanding…. Basically a bunch of gadflys sitting at home, bored & trying to make themselves feel relevant. ===
This is the time we need more transparency, not less. Public has so much less access to info during pandemic. Public meetings aren’t happening which severely hinders public oversight of executive branch actions. Minimal legislative session with significant restrictions on public access created severe challenges for public voice in government decision-making.
Guess what’s still happening:
-government spending - the legislature is going to cede significant spending discretion to Governor this budget year. Also, hazard pay is in effect (as it should be), but shouldn’t we know how much that’s costing? Overtime costs?
- government entering in contracts - some purchases may be necessary and urgent, while other procurements may sidestep regular oversight processes
- government surveillance - in response to staffing shortages, police departments elect alternative surveillance that goes unchecked
- data collection - health information is being aggregated and tracking is being used in unprecedented way for govt doing “contact tracing” for COVID, which may or may not protect privacy adequately or present prospective issues for 4th amendment violation.
During a time of pandemic, we rightly accept balance of individual liberties in interest of collective good. It’s not in the interest of individuals or the collective when to cut the public out and is contrary to the FOIA statutory mandate itself:
“Such access is necessary to enable the people to fulfill their duties of discussing public issues fully and freely, making informed political judgments and monitoring government to ensure that it is being conducted in the public interest.” 5 ILCS 140/1
Comment by FOIA is important Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 5:26 pm
Kudos to the Right to Recovery crew for the effective lobbying effort to kill their own bill.
Comment by George Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 6:03 pm
@FOIA is important:
All very well said. Just sorry it needs to be explained to some people.
@Helm ===trying to make themselves feel relevant===
Also MLL’s favorite retort when she doesn’t like what someone says or does. Your use of it is a cheap shot at reporters doing their jobs to inform the public.
Comment by La Dictadora Saturday, May 23, 20 @ 6:35 pm