Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Reformapalooza

Posted in:

Illinois

More than 2,000 employees would be spared in the latest effort to rid state government of appointees of former Govs. Rod Blagojevich and George Ryan.

House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, Wednesday offered a revised version of his bill to “fumigate” state government that now affects about 750 people, rather than the 3,000 who would have been axed under his original proposal.

In the new version, people who are “double exempt” — not protected by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Rutan patronage decision or the state’s personnel code — are targeted. However, people holding Rutan-exempt jobs, but still protected by the personnel code, are no longer included.

That change was a no-brainer. Some of you got all upset for nothing, even after I suggested you calm down. Also, the guv will hve 90 days to make his fumigation decisions from the time the bill becomes law. If he wants, he can stretch that out another 60 days by delaying his signature on the bill. And the GA doesn’t have to send it to him until 30 days after it passes both chambers. In theory, he could have as much as 6 months to make his decisions. That’s way more than enough time.

* A long-overdue reform was also passed…

The Illinois House of Representatives voted Wednesday to change the method by which lawmakers and other top state government officials get pay raises.

The Compensation Review Board no longer would have the authority to recommend hikes in the base pay for lawmakers, constitutional officers, judges and state’s attorneys under Senate Bill 2090. Instead, lawmakers would have to introduce and vote on specific legislation to grant pay raises to themselves or other officials. […]

Also, SB2090 would require all 118 state lawmakers to take four furlough days off work and forfeit the pay they would receive for those days.

The upcoming cost of living raises have also been killed off.

* Meanwhile, reform commission chairman Patrick Collins pens an op-ed in today’s Sun-
Times…

Again, as this paper has argued, sensible limits — limits that mirror those imposed on candidates for federal office — should be passed for our state, particularly given our corruption-scarred past. The number 46 is again instructive here: 46 states have imposed some form of contribution limits or prohibitions. See a pattern here? Yet, even though campaign fund-raising excesses are at the core of most of our corruption scandals, the apologists talk about the “parade of horribles” that will ensue if we dare to adopt the same limit system in which U.S. presidential candidates must function.

Notice the rhetoric here. People who oppose his plan are “apologists.” Apologists for what, he doesn’t explain.

I suppose, then, that two conservative activists who wrote a guest column in the SJ-R today are also apologists…

Contribution limits are not an indicator of good governance, either. Research conducted by the Center for Competitive Politics found no correlation between the presence of contribution limits and the Pew Center on the States’ ranking of “best governed” states.

* The Illinois Senate Democrats unveiled their contribution caps proposal yesterday…

Under the legislation, candidates could get up to $5,000 a year from individual contributors and up to $10,000 a year from corporations, labor organizations, trade associations and political issue groups. […]

Political funds controlled by state political parties and legislative leaders would get greater leeway. Each year they could collect up to $10,000 from individuals and $20,000 from other political committees.

But the proposal by state Sen. Don Harmon (D-Oak Park) does not address what critics say is a gaping hole in campaign finance law: limits on how much powerful legislative leaders can transfer from their funds to individual House and Senate candidates.

Back to Collins…

We are hearing that, while limits at a much higher level may be considered, the sacred cow of legislative leaders being able to transfer as much as they like from their war chests to local races will remain just that, a sacred cow.

These transfers, when exceedingly large, are a gaping loophole that transforms local races into well-funded mudfights and erodes the independence of legislators once elected.

One person’s “well-funded mudfight” is another person’s idea of how a campaign ought to be run. The independence of legislators is important, of course. The leaders have far too much power. Collins’ own proposal is now in bill form and can be downloaded here.

* The Illinois Press Association is hot under the collar…

Proposed legislation to revise the Illinois Freedom of Information Act is significantly watered down from recommendations to lawmakers by the Illinois Reform Commission, the state attorney general and others, according to the interim head of the Illinois Press Association.

“Only in Illinois would this be defined as reform or transparency,” Don Craven, the association’s interim executive director, said during a telephone news conference today. The association first learned of the changes about midnight Tuesday in a draft of the bill obtained from Illinois House leadership.

More…

For example, the new law would make postal addresses of public employees or anyone arrested exempt from disclosure and it also creates an undefined, broad category for exemptions of personnel material. It continues to allow lawsuit settlements involving taxpayer dollars to be secret.

The revision also limits the authority of the attorney general’s office in pressuring government agencies for disclosure and it removes earlier provisions for criminal penalties for noncompliance.

And the leaders backtracked…

Steve Brown, spokesman for the House speaker, would not discuss the specific provisions of the newest proposal.

“These are preliminary discussions and nothing has been finalized,” Brown said.

Brown said he has been told the 75-page proposal may contain drafting errors and it is too early to draw conclusions from it. “I don’t know how these groups jump to these conclusions, but that’s the way they are,” he said.

* Related…

* Reform panel coming armed to Springfield Friday with bills

* Watchdog hits plan to cap state political campaign fund-raising

* Open-records advocates blast proposed changes to FOIA rewrite bill

* FOIA law push stalls

* FOIA proposals diluted in legislation

* SJ-R: New version of FOIA falls short

* Crunch time for reform

* Illinois Reform Commissioner Says Reform Can’t Wait

* CHANGE Illinois! Tells General Assembly Not To Play Games

* No raises, furloughs approved for lawmakers

* House backs pay raise changes

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 10:21 am

Comments

Pat Collins is attempting to reform Illinois politics.It appears the powers that be don’t want reform and why should they? Is Mike Madigan’s district going to vote him out of office? Not likely.Would Alderman Burke’s ward send him to city council for another 40 years? Of course.A significant part of the Illinois voting public doesn’t want any restraints on government because they are beneficiaries of high taxes and corruption.It would be nice to think of change in Illinois,but it’s not going to happen this year.

Comment by Steve Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 10:42 am
Steve, have you ever heard of spaces between sentences? I almost never read your comments because of the way you write.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 10:53 am
Why are we hyperventilating about the potential loss of jobs by state workers but don’t bat an eye when the feds force nearly 800 Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dealers out of business (40,000 jobs) while using public money? How many of those jobs lost are from Illinois?

Shouldn’t there be the same lever of concern?

Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 11:05 am
Others may have stated this but if a cap on leadership committee transfers is passed then the leaders will just run shadow campaigns in the districts. Just like they do currently in federal races. So Friends of Mike Madigan, or Cross, or whoever, becomes more like the DCCC. My point is that Collins’ rhetoric is just that…rhetoric. His position will not limit the power of leaders,

Nor will it bring about more transparency. It will liekly bring less because the leaders will bundle checks for candidates or spend advocacy money directly in paid media into the district.

Example: I’m special interest ‘A’, I approach a leader and say I want to support your efforts and have $100k to spend. The leader says, I want you to write $2400 checks (or whatever the cap is) to these 20 candidates, write $10k to my fund and then send the remaining $40 to these third party PACs that have popped up all over the place. Done. So instead of the public knowing that $100k went to the leader, the money is hidden or partially hidden. Special interest “A” is happy, the leader is happy, the candidates are happy and the public is in the dark.

I know this example is overly-simple but the point is clear. The Collins proposals are simple for the public to grasp but are not in any way real reform. Good soundbites, bad public policy. Very Blagojevich, to be honest.

Comment by Cosmic Charlie Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 11:06 am
Plutocrat03, that’s an entirely different subject. Let’s stick to state politics here, please. There are plenty of other blogs for you to vent about the federal government.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 11:07 am
Well, it’s the first time I’ve heard that. Thanks.

Comment by Steve Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 11:14 am
It was obvious when those potential “fumigation” lists came out that a lot of the incumbents were protected by our rather draconian civil service laws and therefore unlikely to be easily ejected. What’s interesting is that Madigan and his staff either didn’t know it or didn’t care to be bothered with the details.

PSA’s fall under the civil service laws. So do SPSA employees in four year terms while the terms are running. And a number of SPSA’s in interim status are actually civil service employees temporarily assigned SPSA status and salaries. When their jobs are threatened, they can jump down into their civil service protected jobs-for-life. They have it all–high salaries, great benefits, and ironclad job security–great luxuries in today’s economy. And all unconnected to actual performance or usefulness to the citizenry.

What this means is that a lot of Blago appointees and favorites are going to be in state government for a long, long times and it will be practically impossible to get rid of them. Another way in which the “reform” Democrats have served us so well….not.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 11:31 am
The change in Madigan’s proposal suggests that Illinois state government has over 2,000 jobs that are Rutan-exempt yet permanent, or at least permanent during a multi year term of appointment. This seems like an awful lot, given that these jobs are often high-paying and have considerable influence in the bureaucracy.

Perhaps the goal should be to simultaneously make civil service jobs more competitive and merit-based (many imcumbents did not have to sit a competitive examination for their jobs) and to reduce the number of appointive positions and make them all double-exempt. This allows reform governors to bring in a staff to implment reform, something the current guv has either been unwilling or unable to do. It also allows for
civil service based on merit, not luck or clout.

Comment by Cassandra Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 11:48 am
Mr. Collins is learning the difference between making the law and enforcing the law.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 12:14 pm
The Senate bill will do nothing but strengthen incumbents and the legislative leaders. There is a way to do campaign finance reform, and this is not it.

Comment by Niles Township Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 12:35 pm
RE: Apologists and Patrick Collins

The word “apologist” means a defender of a point of view. Thus, the apologists to whom Mr. Collins refers are those who defend the status quo with respect to campaign contribution limits. They are not “apologizers” for something.

Comment by SafeAggie Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 1:01 pm
from the sj-r:

“Changes by legislative Democrats include … Allowing public officials to satisfy FOIA requests with paper records, and charging for each page, rather than providing information in electronic format.”

The anti-e-gov clause. The leadership in Springfield has seen the future, and are trying to stop it.

Comment by moron Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 1:20 pm
Rich, is the legislature’s proposed FOIA language available somewhere? Maybe it’s because I don’t know where to look…but I can’t find it online.

Comment by Mr. Know-it-All Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 1:23 pm
Cassandra:

Once again you exhibit your ignorance. Many of the exempt jobs (not all, but many) are professional level jobs. What sort of examination would you propose that these people sit for. A hiring process just like the private sector (and yes, base it on merit) is sufficient.

Comment by RJW Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 2:26 pm
Well, in the absence of professional certification (for MD’s, attorneys, and so on) how about a civil service examination. You go somewhere and they give you a written test, followed by, ideally, an interview and you have to score above a certain level to get to the interview.

Professional is a broad term but even MD’s and attorneys shouldn’t be hired based on clout.

Comment by Cassandra Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 3:11 pm
That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. I’m sure the state will get a lot of responses to jobs from lawyers who will have to sit for a test - b/c you know the BAR wasn’t good enough. And, the pay mostly stinks if you are an attorney with the state (compared to law firms or maybe a private practice). I do financial work. Exactly what test should I have to pass? In some instances, which you probably don’t know about, there is a test involved. You are given a “situational” work test that test your knowledge of dealing with situations specific to the job for which you are applying. Those I have taken include working with Excel to see how savvy with formulas you are, analyzing a piece of public policy, writing a bill review, etc. Those tests are more appropriate than a general civil service exam.

I don’t know why you continue to believe that government is so filled with incompetence. If you want a job, apply for one and stop whining about how state government is a bad place.

Comment by RJW Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 4:06 pm
Gubner Quinn ya don’t need know no bill to do what you has to do! Ya always been able to dump the doubles.. whya need a bill? It was you who wanted the fumig8ion. Something make you lose your taste?

Comment by Reggaeman Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 4:51 pm
Once the law is signed and the state employees have 90+ days, will they continue to work in the agency and have access to state computers and information? Or will they be escorted off state property?

Comment by Old Timer Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 5:39 pm
People are lumping all the exempts together and missing an important point. Given the high level (over 90%) of unionization throughout state government, even in areas of so-called “professionals”, it means most hiring and promotion is now based upon seniority, not merit. Out of necessity, many agencies use a lot of their exempt positions not to hire “patronage workers” or “politicos” but to hire people based on expertise and merit, i.e., someone who can actually get the work done. Sure, there are exceptions, and the politicos should go. But when you suggest throwing out ALL the double-exempts, you’re throwing out the baby with the bath water. The proposed statute will allow the Governor to pick and choose, but you shouldn’t judge him too harshly if many double exempts stay. They are not all the hacks that many of you seem to think.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 5:40 pm
The willingness of so many commenters on this blog to assume that anyone now working as an SPSA in state government is both incompetent and hired solely due to clout is mind boggling.

Most of us in this category were promoted into the job after many years of working for the state. If Cassandra can come up with a test, I’m sure almost all would pass it.

Are there goofballs at every level of state government? Sure there are. Most of the real knuckleheads (we used to call them slugs) don’t last very long.

It is an eye opener, though, to see just how many people are willing to judge you based on the job category you are in, the year in which you were hired, or just for working for the state at all.

Comment by DuPage Dave Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 5:54 pm
Well Rich once again you were right. But I know we can’t wait 6 months to rid this fine State of some of these Blago hand picked Agency Directors and Deputy Directors. They are running the State in the ground every day they are in power.

Comment by STATE WORKER Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 6:42 pm
Cassandra: I usually like your posts, but if you think all State employees are pigs ant a trough, you don’t know many State employees. I know one who’s mother made a deal to get her a GA law school scholarship at UI. She could be working in the private sector for $300/hr. Instead she’s spent the last 15 years working for the citizens of this State. In the meantime, she’s seen her pension contributions get sucked into irresponsible budget deals. Healthcare co-pays and deductibles have risen annually. Deferred comp? The market killed that and they don’t have 401(k)’s.

Why would anyone with serious skills want to work for the State of Illinois when they would be paid better, have better benefits, more secure retirement and be treated with more respect ANYWHERE else?

Think about it.

Comment by David Starrett Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 9:19 pm
I, for one, am exploring my options for a lawsuit. What the legislature is doing is unconstitutional. The Governor taking action is one thing, but to have action taken because of a piece of legislation is an unconstituional usurpation of power by the legislature and also violates the rights of a group that are being singled out.

Also, Rich don’t spout your B.S. about the Governor signing the bill. Just b/c a person who is sitting in the Governor’s chair signs the bill doesn’t make it constitutional or override the separation of powers issues. Governor Quinn does not have the right to grant the powers of his office to the legislature.

Comment by RJW Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 11:19 pm
Just my opinion but RJW seems a little touchy. Despite past practice, state employment is public service and not a guarantee for life.

This reminds me of someone complaining because he got caught while everyone else was doing it too. Still don’t make it right.

Comment by Anon for 30 Friday, May 22, 09 @ 7:11 am