Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Duckworth vs. Salvi debate roundup
Next Post: Rate Nikki Budzinski’s closing ad
Posted in:
* Background…
The IL Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in Illinois with respect to employment, financial credit, public accommodations, housing and sexual harassment, as well as sexual harassment in education.
* From the Illinois Human Rights Act…
Sec. 2-101. Definitions. The following definitions are applicable strictly in the context of this Article.
(A) Employee.
(1) “Employee” includes:
(a) Any individual performing services for remuneration within this State for an employer […]“Employee” does not include: […]
Elected public officials or the members of their immediate personal staffs
* Sen. Melinda Bush introduced Amendment 1 to SB576 in February of 2017. It passed the Senate 56-0, but went nowhere in the House because Speaker Madigan bricked it…
Amends the Illinois Human Rights Act. Deletes language providing that “employee” does not include members of the immediate personal staffs of elected public officials. Effective immediately.
Bush introduced the bill again in 2019 and it went nowhere.
* Whether you believe Elly Fawcett-Neal’s story about Rep. Jonathan Carroll or not, it just seems obvious to me, at least, that elected officials’ personal staffs should not be specifically exempted from the Illinois Human Rights Act.
Your thoughts?
…Adding… Press release…
Today, Jack Vrett, candidate for State Representative in the 53rd district, called on State Representative Mark Walker to donate $21,250 in tainted funds from accused abuser, State Representative Jonathan Carroll.
Carroll is accused of firing a staffer who refused to have an abortion, subjecting her to a toxic and abusive work environment where she endured the type of harassment, intimidation, and retaliation known to occur in state government under Democratic rule.
“Mark Walker continues to benefit from Springfield’s most corrupt politicians,” said Vrett. “Whether it is Mike Madigan, Kim Foxx, or Jonathan Carroll, we must turn the page on corruption and purge Illinois of self-dealers and unethical politicians who put families at risk.”
In taking funds from Carroll, Walker continues his pattern of funding his campaign with donations taken from questionable sources. Walker previously accepted $1,924,914 from indicted former Speaker Michael Madigan, even after investigations, indictments, and arrests of Madigan’s closest allies.
…Adding… Press release…
Today, Rich Janor, candidate for State Representative in the 41st district, called on Rep. Janet Yang Rohr to donate $35,800 in tainted funds from accused abuser, State Representative Jonathan Carroll.
Carroll is accused of firing a staffer who refused to have an abortion, subjecting her to a toxic and abusive work environment where she endured the type of harassment, intimidation, and retaliation known to occur in state government under Democratic rule.
“After taking over a million dollars from Mike Madigan, Janet Yang Rohr continues to fund her campaign with donations from men who do not respect women,” said Janor. “While Springfield corruption continues unchecked, Yang Rohr not only stands by silently, but is part of the financial ecosystem that allows these men to stay in positions of power.”
Yang Rohr previously accepted over $1 million from indicted former Speaker Michael Madigan, even after allegations swirled around Madigan and his closest allies, including a rape cover-up and allegations of sexual harassment in Madigan’s 13th Ward office.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 10:25 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Duckworth vs. Salvi debate roundup
Next Post: Rate Nikki Budzinski’s closing ad
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Absolutely. They deserve to be treated with basic dignity and respect like everyone else, and elected officials above all should be held to high standards.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 10:30 am
Agree. In fact every law that specifically excludes staffers should be looked at closely.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 10:31 am
Just as a thought experiment, I would like to see someone explain why this should not be amended.
Comment by Chicago Republican Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 10:32 am
Agreed. Also, given Illinois lax revolving door policy as noted here earlier this week, maybe a lame duck since primary shouldn’t be running a House committee any longer. Too funny that he is
Comment by Future Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 10:46 am
- Chicago Republican - Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 10:32 am:
I’m sure IPI can spin that it would increase your property taxes and be the slippery slope towards more government unions or something like that.
Comment by Google Is Your Friend Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 10:54 am
Yes and the provision just below that that too.
(d) Principal administrative officers of the State or of any political subdivision, municipal corporation or other governmental unit or agency;
Guzzardi removed the provision that excluded small businesses from being defined as employers in the last few years. I recall him having some pretty compelling graphics about how we were out of line with most neighboring states on that. Maybe it the case for these exclusions as well.
It would also be worth noting that none of the concerns about businesses being sued constantly because of the inclusion of small businesses came to fruition.
Comment by twowaystreet Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 10:56 am
I see no logical reason to exempt staff.
Comment by JoanP Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 10:56 am
Yes, especially given how ambiguous the “immediate personal staffs” exception is. Does this include district staffers regardless of title? How far reaching is this for the caucus staff? It’s high time for it to go
Comment by The Office Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 11:01 am
Completely agree with you.
Comment by Day Late Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 11:04 am
100%. This is asinine.
Comment by Shytown Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 11:06 am
I agree with you. I also think it is high time Legislative staff starts to unionize.
Comment by It's me Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 11:09 am
=== I also think it is high time Legislative staff starts to unionize. ===
Don’t think that would fly. They are in positions that are exempted under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 11:17 am
==They are in positions that are exempted under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act.==
Well, just like the post suggests, that could be easily fixed via legislation. Here you go!
5 ILCS 315/3
…
(l) “Person” includes one or more individuals, labor organizations, public employees, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, receivers, or the State of Illinois or any political subdivision of the State or governing body [end sentence] [strike] but does not include the General Assembly of the State of Illinois or any individual employed by the General Assembly of the State of Illinois [end strike].
Comment by The Office Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 11:31 am
The only reason to exempt staff is to mitigate risk to the elected if the elected does something nefarious. Get rid of it.
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 12:00 pm
No human should be exempted from the Human Rights Act.
Comment by Walker Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 12:00 pm
Re: Adding 1, and Adding 2
Interesting symmetry between these two moral outcries.
Carroll is a talking point, rather than a real issue it seems. Perhaps the Republicans should be focusing their attention on the harassment of women, rather than the source of political funds.
Comment by H-W Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 12:05 pm
To follow up, if you as an elected official do not wish to be bound by the laws that you impose on others, you have no business being an elected official.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 12:07 pm
==I also think it is high time Legislative staff starts to unionize.==
That would make our taxes go up, wouldn’t it? Better “stay in your lane” /s
Comment by low level Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 12:13 pm
==I also think it is high time Legislative staff starts to unionize.==
=== That would make our taxes go up, wouldn’t it? Better “stay in your lane” /s ===
I don’t the issue would be about money as it relates to the unionization of legislative staff - it is more about the nature of the work they do that makes the unionization of legislative staff impractical.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 1:03 pm
Elly Fawcett-Neal was not a member of Rep. Carroll’s “immediate” staff.
She reported to the Chief-of-staff.
i understand not wanting an agency under the. governor to be politicized by going after public officials.
But i dont see why her case cannot go forward with regard to complaints against the chief of staff at the very least.
Comment by Juvenal Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 1:19 pm
==I’m sure IPI can spin that it would increase your property taxes and be the slippery slope towards more government unions or something like that ==
While it might be fun to take a shot at the IPI, I guess I missed how they bricked the bill.
Whenever the legislative branch is exempt from a law they pass, it should always be looked at with a highly questioning eye.
But yeah, this is my inner Tom Peters coming out. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly and with compassion and that includes folks who work for legislators.
Comment by OneMan Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 1:22 pm
==I don’t the issue would be about money as it relates to the unionization of legislative staff - it is more about the nature of the work they do that makes the unionization of legislative staff impractical.==
Hannibal, because of the work we do, how would unionizing be impractical? Congressional offices and staffs for states like Oregon and now New York have been able to unionize.
Also, the biggest reason behind the union would be better protections. There is little to no HR in Springfield for either district or Springfield staff. No one, especially district staff, feel they have someone to reach out to if their boss (legislator) is harassing or being abusive. Also, although there is whistleblower protections against retaliation, no staffer feels that they would hold up or that legislators wouldn’t find a way around it.
Comment by Leg. Staffer Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 3:39 pm