Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: SB 328: Protects Working People & Helps Fight Trump’s Predatory MAGA Agenda
Posted in:
* Background is here if you need it. The chief financial officer filed a witness slip against the police and fire pension bill? That’s truly above and beyond. Must’ve taken her all of, what, fifteen seconds?…
When Johnson was asked about the pension bill during a City Hall press conference Tuesday, he said his administration “made it very clear that this legislation would certainly make our situation far more difficult because of the fact that there wasn’t any revenue attached to it,” but stopped short of saying he asked Pritzker to veto the bill.
“He was in a tough position. I understand that,” Johnson said of the governor. “I’m going to continue to work with the governor around ways in which we can generate the revenue to respond to pensions, transportation and education.”
While Johnson has been criticized for not opposing the bill more forcefully in public, his team worked against it in the lead-up to the vote, including his chief financial officer, Jill Jaworski, signing a witness slip opposed to the legislation. When the mayor visited Springfield in late April with a list of “modest” funding requests, his financial team met separately with the bill’s lead sponsor, Sen. Robert Martwick, and other legislators to discuss it.
That meeting with Sen. Martwick obviously didn’t have much impact even though Martwick is one of the mayor’s last true allies in the General Assembly,
* The governor was asked about this topic yesterday at the Illinois State Fair…
Look, first of all, I stand up for our police. Always have. … And they deserve to have the same rules applied to them as they’re applied to police all over the state of Illinois. And that’s all that this bill did.
Secondly, the mayor never once called me, or as far as I know, any legislators to oppose that bill or to ask for any changes in that bill. And you know, when a municipality that’s affected by some piece of legislation doesn’t speak up about it, opposing it, then how can people know that the mayor opposed it?
And he didn’t until, oh, after it passed. I know that some of the members of his administration have said so. I really don’t know that the mayor himself opposes it. What I know is that we have helped the Chicago Police get fairness in their contract.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 8:30 am
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: SB 328: Protects Working People & Helps Fight Trump’s Predatory MAGA Agenda
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The CFO testified against the bill at the Committee hearing for probably 10-15 minutes. She was adamant about the cost and gave specific numbers and she clearly had spent quite a bit of time preparing for her testimony. As an observer listening to the hearing for a different matter, the Mayor’s position was clearly articulated and the cost numbers were scary to hear as a non-Chicago resident concerned about Chicago’s finances.
Comment by May soon be required Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 8:42 am
And, yet, it passed unanimously…
Comment by Oklahoma Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 8:45 am
==The CFO testified against the bill at the Committee hearing for probably 10-15 minutes==
Very good, but perhaps the next move could have been a call tp Harmon and Welch’s people emphasizing their concerns and asking them to put a brick on the bill might have helped?
Comment by low level Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 8:59 am
This is the problem with pensions. Politics wins every time. Yes, the bill was expensive. Politically, who can oppose benefits for first responders? Dems need union support to win elections. What wins with voters: supporting first responders or fiscal responsibility? If funding falls from 18 to 0 and retirees stop getting benefit checks, maybe people will wake up to the need for funding? Supporters claiming it’s not the cops’ problem to find a way to fund the benefit increases is rich. They should want the money to be there when they retire.
Comment by Pumps Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 9:02 am
-And, yet, it passed unanimously…
Yes. That’s the botton line. It’s not a controversial issue in Illinois politics. Far from it.
Comment by Steve Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 9:06 am
MBJ remains clueless. What galls me is he doesn’t have anyone within his inner circle who seems to have a good grasp of how the legislative process works in Springfield.
Sending the CFO to testify against it is fine, but that can’t be the only thing you do.
Comment by RiverNorthGuy Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 9:07 am
Not a fan of Mayor Johnson but perhaps the next move could have been to contact the Mayor’s Office and discuss their opposition. Communication is two-way street.
Comment by P. Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 9:08 am
Jill Jaworski also said a couple weeks ago that the City could have to raise property taxes, then the next day the Mayor said he was not raising property taxes. Not sure what she gets out of this working relationship.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 9:17 am
I am all about fairness. Borrowing money to pay for fairness is a different story. Governors own.
Comment by Blue Dog Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 9:22 am
=What galls me is he doesn’t have anyone within his inner circle who seems to have a good grasp of how the legislative process works in Springfield.=
The Mayor has made the purposeful choice not to engage despite being repeatedly called out on it. Two years into this administrations it’s clear that this is a feature not a bug. It’s not as if Jaworski was working covertly on this.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 9:31 am
==The CFO testified against the bill ==
How is that relevant to the Mayor not picking up the phone and calling the Governor? The Mayor should be talking to the Governor directly about Chicago issues. He seems to have zero clue on how to manage the City’s relationship with the state. If the Mayor can’t be bothered to speak with the Governor then I as the Governor wouldn’t be all that interested in helping him out.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 9:45 am
==The Mayor should be talking to the Governor directly about Chicago issues.==
And a call to Harmon and Welch to not call the bill. Once the bill was brought to a vote it was going to pass.
He and Harmon go way back. I would think he especially would be receptive to working with the mayors office.
Comment by low level Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 10:00 am
===call to Harmon and Welch to not call the bill===
Unless the mayor doesn’t actually oppose it.
The city’s opposition was either performative or completely derelict.
Remember, the FOP got a pretty darned good contract out of Johnson, with no new accountability rules.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 10:03 am
==they deserve to have the same rules applied to them as they’re applied to police all over the state of Illinois==
Chicago teachers and downstate teachers don’t have the exact same pension rules either.
== I really don’t know that the mayor himself opposes it.==
Excellent observation. Has anyone point blank asked Brandon if he feels Chicago police officers should have equal benefits on principle alone?
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 10:06 am
=He and Harmon go way back. I would think he especially would be receptive to working with the mayors office.=
Precisely. And it undercuts the worn out argument that Johnson is somehow a neophyte and Pritzker should be mentoring him. The Mayor knows how this works. He’s made the conscious decision not to engage.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 10:08 am
===Look, first of all, I stand up for our police. […] And they deserve to have the same rules applied to them as they’re applied to police all over the state of Illinois.===
It is those other tier 2 public sector employees that are undeserving?
Teachers, take note.
===Secondly, the mayor never once called me===
Is the Governor deflecting criticism of the bill by suggesting that he supports a bill because no one called him to tell him they didn’t support it?
Governors own. He doesn’t have to sign it. He can veto it and make them override his veto if he wants to send a message about the fiscal impacts of the bill.
If it is a bad bill, don’t sign it. If you’re signing it into law and it is being criticized it’s not Mayor Johnson’s fault you signed it.
Did the Governor’s office not independently have a position on the legislation and did the Governor’s office not have an understanding on the impact of the legislation?
Comment by Candy Dogood Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 10:15 am
Does Mayor Johnson even have a point person in the General Assembly? It used to be common practice for the city to have a designated go to person in the legislature. I remember Carol Moseley Braun used to hold this position. I don’t know who Johnson has in the GA.
Comment by City Rep in Springpatch? Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 10:25 am
The mayor needs to learn that pols with egos don’t like being used as pawns when you’re playing games.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 10:31 am
“Politically, who can oppose benefits for first responders?”
Someone who is concerned about the continued population loss that ensuing tax hikes will bring
“Governors own. He doesn’t have to sign it. He can veto it and make them override his veto if he wants to send a message about the fiscal impacts of the bill. ”
Precisely
Comment by The Farm Grad Thursday, Aug 7, 25 @ 11:02 am