Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Will Quinn “save” pre-school program?

Posted in:

Illinois

* Gov. Pat Quinn appears to be already promising money from that $1.2 billion in magical cash reserves…

…Quinn said Monday he’s now hoping to reverse a recommendation by the State Board of Education to cut pre-school for 30,000 youngsters.

“Well the State Board of Education made that recommendation, but I have the final say. So we’re going to be reviewing everything,” Quinn said.

He didn’t exactly say he would “reverse” the decision, but whatever.

While good news for early education advocates and participants, that’s less money which can be spent elsewhere or used to keep next year’s horrific $10B+ deficit in check.

For instance, a new study reportedly shows…

The percentage of children in Illinois living in poverty increased 13 percent between 2000 and 2007, from 15 percent in 2000 to 17 percent in 2007. During the same time period, Data Book indicators show that the percentage of children living in families without secure parental employment rose from 29 percent to 31 percent. While both measures are lower than 2007 national averages, the Illinois indicators increased at a faster rate than in the United States.

* Meanwhile, there’s been a minor uproar lately from the religious and non-religious about the projects in the state’s new capital bill which benefit religious institutions. Eric Zorn reveals today that not all those projects may make the final cut, however…

A spokesman for Gov. Quinn said Monday that individual state agencies will rule “on a case-by-case basis” which projects are constitutional as these agencies negotiate the specifics of each grant.

Great. The lawmakers pander to their constituents, state agencies get the blame and the rest of us get to pay for more litigation

That’s usually how it goes.

* Speaking of the capital bill, the Daily Herald demands that local governments in its territory opt out of the new video gaming law…

So far, there has been precious little discussion of the issue at area municipal board meetings and almost no hearings to understand what constituents think or to delve into the deeper implications. A DuPage County Board member did speak out last week when he said he would ask the board to ban the machines in unincorporated areas. We need more of that kind of discussion. As Anita Bedell, director of the Illinois Church Action on Alcohol & Addiction Problems, said, “Once this is in your community, you can’t stop it.”

To our mayors and village presidents, to our city councils and village boards, we have four words: End the silence now.

The locals certainly have that right. They’ll miss out on the gaming revenues, of course. But I also wonder whether you think capital projects should be moved down the priority list if the local governments refuse to help pay for it via this new gaming tax of legalized video poker.

* Related…

* Downtown Partnership tightens budget belt

* SJ-R: Re-examine how state imprisons criminals

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:04 pm

Comments

SOmething I was not clear on abou the new law, does it require all video poker machines to be either licensed under the act or banned outright, if anyon knows. or example, If your city band video poker gambling, can the bar still get an amusement license for video poker? (i.e. the under thetable gambling continues, the city just loses out)

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:13 pm
With respect to the video poker, I’m still not clear on a key point. If they were specifically banned in a community before the new law, does the local rule still prevail? If so, some of these towns won’t have to enact a ban for one to be in place, and inaction is always the easier course. That has the potential to be a big drag on the revenue stream.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:15 pm
Rich inquires, “But I also wonder whether you think capital projects should be moved down the priority list if the local governments refuse to help pay for it via this new gaming tax of legalized video poker.”

The problem with that is it’s not cut and dry like the Federal Stimulus vote was. It’s clear who voted for Stimulus and who voted against so it would be easy enough to say Republicans who voted no should not receive Stimulus funds for their districts lest they look hypocritical.

But with this the gaming funds would impact other agencies that overlap or are co-terminus with villages. For instance, should a library or school district be punished because a village board votes to ban video poker?

Those other entities have nothing to do with enacting a ban.

Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:16 pm
“COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY INDIVIDUAL PROVIDERS
OF HOME-BASED SUPPORT SERVICES

WHEREAS, individual providers of home-based support services (“individual providers”) provide services to persons with disabilities (“consumers”) in their own homes as part of the Home-Based Support Services Program under 405 ILCS 80/2-1 et seq., and 59 Ill.Admin.Code part 117; ”

I was surfing the web and happen to visit the State’s home page. Then went to the Gov’s page on recent executive orders ( #15) The link is below. I wonder what Union is going to benefit from this? How much extra will this cost the State? I don’t see how the State can afford this.

Maybe I am not seeing this correctly.

http://www.illinois.gov/gov/execorders/2009_15.htm

Comment by Ill_will Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:19 pm
–But I also wonder whether you think capital projects should be moved down the priority list if the local governments refuse to help pay for it via this new gaming tax of legalized video poker.–

No, not at all.

Video gaming was legalized for the benefit of the entire state infrastructure. If some areas, opt out, that’s their choice, but they’re still part of the state infrastructure and should be treated equally.

The bar owners where it is allowed will make more money, and might even draw in out-of-town money.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:21 pm
=== but they’re still part of the state infrastructure and should be treated equally. ====

All roads lead to rome, but only those in rome around bars with gambling are paved and traversable.

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:26 pm
Why and how is the State engaging in collective bargaining for non-State employees. Makes no sense to me. Can anyone explain it?

Comment by Ill_will Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:26 pm
Mr. Zorn, or someone like him, should look into why the state gives Monetary Assistance Grants to students who attend private colleges. That means less assistance for those who attend our state institutions. And private school cost a whole lot more.

Comment by Deep South Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:27 pm
Attn: Daily Herald and Anita Bedell

It already is in your community, and no, just like prohibition and marijuana, you can’t stop it. At best you can try to regulate it.

Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:28 pm
Rob–”For instance, should a library or school district be punished because a village board votes to ban video poker?”–

While I see what you were saying, this really made me laugh. Coming from a small village myself, I’m wondering if you’ve ever attended board meetings in one? Nothing like a good ol’ dinky village uproar smackdown when coming to the simplest things that might affect or cross between these boards. They don’t seem to have any trouble defending themselves or eventually coming to terms with each other.

Comment by Cindy Lou Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:34 pm
Straight from the Quinn playbook - implicitly promising resources to a certain entity until they’re somewhat mollified, and attempt to placate the next agency facing serious cuts. Rinse and repeat. Lovely, ain’t it?

I sense a Daley-esque “it’s all about the children” rationale forthcoming, albeit in English.

Comment by The Doc Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:34 pm
Ill_will, do a bit more research. This is a renewal of a previous executive order.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:36 pm
On another budget related front, my staff just informed me that ILEPA will not host any household hazardous waste collection days this year due to budget cuts.

Comment by GA Watcher Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:40 pm
Rich,
I think this is a new one, but, I wouldn’t swear to that and will defer to you. Does your response mean that the State has other contracts like this?
Just asking.

Comment by Ill_will Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:41 pm
BTW, many (maybe most) bar owners won’t make more money, they’ll make less. All receipts will be taxed, probably for the first time in a lot of cases, and they’ll be taxed both thru a gaming tax and the remaining profit as ordinary income, and they will be limited in the number of machines they can have. It’s going to be tough on a lot of people, especially the social and fraternal organizations

Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:44 pm
Ill_will, the person receiving the in home care is considered the employer. The state does some things on their behalf, ie with hold FICA, union dues, etc from the people they employ. I assume negotiating with the home care workers representative is also a service.

Comment by Reality is Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 12:50 pm
Deep South, I think your comment went off the deep end. Illinois ranks #2 in the number of college students we export to other states, students who spend tons of money on housing, food, books and sometimes even in bars.

You don’t want Illinois kids to go to college in Illinois? Fine, Iowa will take them. And so will Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan…

Not a good plan, Deep South. And it won’t save the kind of money you think it will. Moreover, losing these students will really hurt towns like Monmouth, Decatur, Galesburg, Greenville, Jacksonville, etc.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 1:01 pm
>
I guess I am now wondering :Why if it was issued before, does it need to be re-issued?

If the State is just doing certain administrative tasks as you suggest (dues fica etc) This doesn’t require negotiations. The State would just take whatever the FICA % is and whatever the Union says are the dues. The ExOrder reads in part
Section 1.
1. The State shall recognize a representative designated by a majority of the individual providers in the Home-Based Support Services Program as the exclusive representative of all such individual providers; accord said representative all the rights and duties granted to such representatives by the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, 5 ILCS 315/1 et seq.; and engage in collective bargaining with said representative concerning all terms and conditions of the provision of services under the Home-Based Support Services Program that are within the State’s control, including the setting of minimum rates of payment to individual providers.
The State will be negotiating the rates of pay.

As I read it.

Comment by Ill_will Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 1:02 pm
Sorry,
I was attempting to respond to Reality Is.

Comment by Ill_will Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 1:03 pm
47th…you’re probably right. But now I’m wondering: Do we really give these private college students so much money that places like Monmouth, Decatur, Galesburg, etc. will be hurt if those students get MAP money? That’s some pretty high tuition I’m paying. Maybe if we gave in-state, state-college bound students the money they need, they’d stay in Illinois? I’m sure Iowa ain’t givin’ up on the out of state tuition revenue just to get our kids…..Just askin’…

Comment by Deep South Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 1:15 pm
Should read: “if those students didn’t get MAP money?”

Comment by Deep South Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 1:16 pm
Thanks Deep South,

Right now, all taxpayers subsidize state universities, keeping tuition as low as possible (theoretically at least). But we also subidize poor students with the MAP grant. The grant can be used at public or private colleges, and is the same dollar amount regardless of the tuition at the individual school. So if the tuition is $10,000 at U of I, MAP might cover half. If the tuition is $40,000 at Northwestern, MAP covers maybe 10%. Almost every private school provides additional scholarship dollars to students as well, something the public can’t really do except in certain cases.

These scholarships go to students with financial need (along with the federal Pell grant). Cutting MAP means students will take their Pell grants elsewhere, and then we’d lose those funds too.

It isn’t like the public schools can simply absorb all of the Illinois students anyway since enrollment is higher at Illinois’ private universities as in all of its public universities.

Finally, as mentioned previously, in a lot of smaller towns, private colleges are economic engines. Any time we can keep Illinois students in any Illinois college is a good thing for the state.

Given the budget nightmare though, this is another worthy state program that is about to be axed. But hopefully the Governor will make an informed decision and not simply “cut the privates” out of the program. That would make a bad decision a stupid one.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 1:37 pm
Lets recognize that this kind of gubernatorial work-around is neither new, nor should it be unexpected. With a GA assigning all fiscal decisions to Quinn, and deliberately passing a fraud of an annual budget, the Democrats believe they have no responsibilities regarding these decisions, and don’t want to come forward to offer any direction either.

So Quinn will be stepping forward on this and on many future fiscal issues since he has been abandoned by his party regarding these things.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 2:04 pm
Giving most of the spending discretion to the Governor was not exactly a kind act. Whatever gets cut, the fingers will point at Quinn. This was a pretty hostile move by the Cullerton and Madigan.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 3:53 pm
Thanks to “47th Ward” for clarifying some of the finer points of the Monetary Award Program. As noted, MAP grants fall far short of paying full tuition, but they’re a critical piece of the college financing puzzle for low-income students–whether they’re just out of high school or spent years in the workforce. Our state’s system of higher education is strong and diverse, and the Commission believes that individuals and the state are well served by the mix of public and private institutions accessible to Illinois students. Providing MAP grants to students at both public and private institutions moves us closer to equal opportunity for any student motivated and talented enough to get to college. Not only is it consistent with the Commission’s mission of promoting access and affordability for Illinois students, but it’s consistent with decades of state law and practice and the state’s Public Agenda for Higher Education.

It’s also worth noting that enrollment in Illinois postsecondary institutions from 1976 to 2006 grew by more than 145K…but less than 12K–less than 8% of the increase–was in the public universities. It’s probably not reasonable to assume that the public four-years could meet the state’s full demand even if they received a huge increase in funding. That’s certainly NOT to say that we couldn’t use better funding for public four-years, but it underscores that the state’s demand for degrees is not going to be met by public universities alone. If we’re going to meet the needs of students and the workforce, removing financial barriers to college is important regardless of whether the students are in public four-years, private four-years, or commmunity colleges.

Thanks for the space, Rich.

-Katharine Gricevich, Illinois Student Assistance Commission (Government Relations)

Comment by Katharine (ISAC) Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 3:58 pm
Ill_will - Yes, the state will be negotiating rates as a service to those individuals receiving home care services.

Comment by Reality is Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 4:00 pm
Pat Quinn said he would need the wisdom of Solomon to deal with the state budget shortfall, and he was right.

And he’s failing his first test.

Instead of trying to figure out how to “save” early childhood education, Quinn should be loudly ruminating plans to cut the baby in half.

Comment by Yellow Dog Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 4:14 pm
Cindy Lou, 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of the month.

Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 4:55 pm
Thanks RI,
Can you stand one more QX? Who pays the salaries, and, if it is the care receiver, are they getting State money? This sounds like a new program liability to me.

And what union?

I did as Rich suggested and did some more research. The only thing similar (that I found) was in 03. But it sounded different to me. Plus, it shows that a contract was entered into between the State and SEIU.
Link:
http://www.cms.illinois.gov/cms/download/pdfs/emp_seiupast.pdf

The document is not signed. But it is between CMS/DHS and Seiu.

I promise this is my last post on this issue.

Comment by Ill_will Tuesday, Jul 28, 09 @ 5:03 pm