Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Amazon threatens to dump Illinois associates over “unconstitutional” bill, others threaten to leave the state - Tenaska threatens to abandon project
Next Post: How the death penalty abolition bill passed on the second try
Posted in:
* I told subscribers about this bill after it passed the House Wednesday. It was approved by the Senate yesterday and has received zero media coverage outside of myself and the Champaign News-Gazette. Here is the paper’s story…
A budget reform process that proponents say will help bring fiscal discipline to Illinois cleared the House Wednesday, 85-26.
It would generally limit spending to revenue projections, require the governor to set annual budget priorities and would require regular review of state grants awards, beginning in 2012.
The most controversial portion of the measure – one that brought out a flood of opponents from organized labor – would keep governors from imposing new labor agreements on their successors.
“We don’t want the current administration, basically, to tie the hands of a future administration,” said Rep. Carol Sente, D-Vernon Hills, the sponsor of the bill.
She admitted the bill was a reaction to a labor agreement Gov. Pat Quinn signed last summer, just before the gubernatorial election.
Sente said the goal of the grant review was to determine “what are we funding and are we meeting the goal of that grant program. We’re not trying to pick on any one item. We’re just trying to get the budget back in shape.”
The union contract provision was fascinating to me. From the bill’s synopsis…
Provides that no collective bargaining agreement entered into on or after the effective date of the amendatory Act between an executive branch constitutional officer or any agency or department of an executive branch constitutional officer and a labor organization may extend beyond June 30th of the year in which the terms of office of executive branch constitutional officers begin.
Provides that no collective bargaining agreement entered into on or after the effective date of the amendatory Act between an executive branch constitutional officer or any agency or department of an executive branch constitutional officer and a labor organization may provide for an increase in salary, wages, or benefits starting on or after the first day of the terms of office of executive branch constitutional officers and ending June 30th of that same year.
Provides that any collective bargaining agreement in violation of these provisions is terminated and rendered null and void by operation of law.
Remember Gov. Pat Quinn’s much-criticized no-layoff deal with AFSCME last fall? That got a ton of media attention, but a reform which addressed the issue and passed both chambers has failed to receive any ink at all from the big boys. Strange.
And that grant review mentioned above is actually tougher than reported. Lots and lots of state grants could be terminated next year. From the synopsis…
Amends the Illinois Grant Funds Recovery Act. Provides that: any grant funds and any grant program administered by a grantor agency subject to the Act are indefinitely suspended on July 1, 2012, and on July 1st of every 5th year thereafter, unless the General Assembly, acting by Joint Resolution, authorizes that grantor agency to make grants or lifts the suspension of the authorization of that grantor agency to make grants;
in the case of a suspension of the authorization of a grantor agency to make grants, the authority of that grantor agency to make grants is suspended until the suspension is explicitly lifted by Joint Resolution by the General Assembly, even if an appropriation has been made for the explicit purpose of such grants; and the suspension of grant making authority supersedes any other law or rule to the contrary.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 7:20 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Amazon threatens to dump Illinois associates over “unconstitutional” bill, others threaten to leave the state - Tenaska threatens to abandon project
Next Post: How the death penalty abolition bill passed on the second try
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The GA is grabbing back power from the Executive. It will be interesting to see which way Quinn jumps. His reaction will tell you a lot about how strong he feels.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 8:28 am
I wonder if the collective bargaining provisions will create any scheduling problem with respect to negotiations that fall in place after AFSCME is done. Also, it would be better if all contracts awarded or renewed by the Executive Branch were also reviewed…it’s one thing to approve a budget; it’s another to have some oversight on how it’s spent.
Comment by Justa Joe Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 9:12 am
Times are tough, and we public union workers also have to sacrifice. Although this appears tough for us, taxpayers are also going to pay through the income tax increase. I don’t see anything here that seeks to end collective bargaining. As long as we retain the right to collectively bargain and politically organize, it’s the best of a bad situation.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 10:01 am
This bill represents a sea change in the relationship between the Illinois Democratic Party and organized labor. Until now they were allies, clearly this is no longer the case.
Comment by Quiet Sage Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 10:03 am
wordslinger - “interesting to see which way Quinn jumps” he may just choose the window!
Comment by KnuckleHead Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 10:03 am
I think that as long as organized labor is allowed to exist in Illinois, it will no doubt be a tougher road, but we still will be able to organize politically and affect election outcomes.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 10:17 am
Kotowski said in committee - and its ambiguous language in the bill - that he didn’t know if the requirement on the grants to be ratified by the GA would be as simple as a budget bill or if a seperate piece of legislation would be required. They took out the Joint resolution requirement by moving it to a different bill. Now its just cotified into law by the GA. Its one of the worst drafted bills I have ever seen (and thats saying something).
Comment by Moderate Repub Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 10:45 am
G of Man,
Careful what you say here as a union member. Folk sometimes will call you out as a self hating member of the rank and file when you make such statements. However, as a state employee myself, I agree with you on all points. While an argument can be made that balancing the budget on the backs of hardworking front line state employees is unfair given that the reason for the states fiscal problems were not caused by them, the fact still remains that many people will be affected by the draconian measures that will be needed in order for the ship of state to be made sound again.
Remember (as Red Green has said many times), we’re all in this together. He also said we should keep our stick on the ice but I don’t think that applies here.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 10:47 am
Isn’t there a state law or constitutional provision that prohibits committing future general assemblies? Or is that just for the legislative branch? This appears to be an attempt to extend this provision to the executive branch.
Comment by state mope Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 10:51 am
Well, AFSCME did support Quinn big time so, like the middle class taxpayers whose wallets the Dems are about to raid big time, they can’t say they didn’t see it coming. In the middle of a massive jobs recession, Quinn had to know that protecting the jobs of state union members for two years no matter what was not going to be well received. Somebody was going to have to do something, even a Democratic somebody. We’ll see if it has any short term effect. Quinn is still the governor who can’t fire anybody, needed/competent or not. That’s not going to change over the next 4 (8?) years. And there is still the big negotiation coming up in 2012. Will union members get a raise
big enough to cover the income tax increase and then some. I wouldn’t be surprised. That may be where AFSCME gets its payback. Important to keep watching, anyway.
Comment by cassandra Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 11:00 am
SJ-R reported this a.m. that Rep. Braur “wanted to reinstitute the fraud unit” which was DISBANDED 4 YEARS AGO (emphasis mine) to investigate medicaid fraud. Disbanded??
Before ALL things, program integrity must be in place at all levels of government, and all consumers/vendors of the benfits. Sickening.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 11:01 am
dupage dan,
I believe that for our longevity and for political leverage, we should have a conciliatory attitude while still fighting for benefits. For me that doesn’t mean we should sell out completely, but again, we should be willing to make concessions but also gain something during this very tough time. I don’t want to be accused of absolute rigidity by my very-threatening opponents. I think that some concession can have a favorable public relations outcome–favorable enough to elect candidates who have our interests at heart.
In 2009, I was leaning heavily toward the Greens and Rich Whitney because our necks were on the layoff chopping block. Last year, I decided to vote for Quinn because I determined (correctly) that Whitney would do poorly in the election. I felt that a little of something was better than a whole lot of nothing. My local got a resolution passed in the 2009 AFSCME convention to seek a third party. If AFSCME had endorsed Whitney, in my opinion, we would have been really left out, with the Democrats having no reason to do anything for us and possibly cater to the anti-government crowd and just decimate us. That would have relieved the Dems of our burden.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 11:03 am
- I determined (correctly) that Whitney would do poorly in the election. -
Does anyone that votes for Whitney think otherwise?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 11:34 am
STLiberal,
There are those in AFSCME who are in the far-left and way out of the mainstream who urged support of the Greens. They want the rich to bear the entire burden of solving the budget crisis, yet they want to concede nothing. If I was a rich person, this would be easy to attack. I would say, Why should I concede something when you will not?
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 11:40 am
Does this proposed bill exclude any catagories of state employees like legislators and judges?
Comment by anon Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 12:11 pm
I have often though it was od that the union contracts ha ifferent terms then the Gov who signed them. Idelay we would have a provision that prhobits any consitutional officer or adminisartion from entering any contract which extends beyound the fiscal year in which their term ends.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 12:12 pm
Also it seems logical tat the GA should have to approve on a yearly basis when they do the budget any negotiated raises or benefits.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 12:13 pm
I dont see a problem with any of it. Its about time someone checked on grants. look where blogo sent his grants. As far as the contracts expireing with the term of the gov. well OK its a 4 year term. I like it…..
Comment by Just Because Friday, Jan 7, 11 @ 1:30 pm