Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Stop Illinois Big Coal Bailouts
Next Post: Rauner takes more heat on Quincy veterans’ home
Posted in:
* From a February 20th Northwest Herald story…
“What I stand for is local control,” [Gov. Bruce Rauner] told the Northwest Herald Editorial Board on Friday morning as he visited McHenry County to pitch why voters should elect him for a second term. “The people of McHenry should be empowered to make their own choices very easily.” […]
State Rep. David McSweeney, R-Barrington Hills, filed a bill in January that would give voters an opportunity to eliminate township government with a majority vote. The move would shift the services provided by townships to local municipalities and the county. […]
Rauner stands behind efforts such as McSweeney’s.
“Let’s empower local residents to figure it out,” Rauner said. “Let’s free up the people of Illinois and give power to the people to decide, and I’ll think we’ll get to a good solution.”
* Rep. McSweeney’s HB4637, which passed the House 80-22-1…
Provides that the board of trustees of any township located in McHenry County may submit a proposition to dissolve the township to the township electors or township electors may petition for a referendum to dissolve a township.
* Northwest Herald last night…
Rauner spent part of his Saturday at an invitation-only roundtable with members of the McHenry County Republican Party. A focus of discussion was House Bill 4637 – a proposed consolidation bill from state Rep. David McSweeney, R-Barrington Hills. […]
Rauner spoke in general terms about the bill and commented that he usually does not support bills that focus on one county in particular. He prefers legislation that carries statewide effect, GOP sources who attended the meeting said.
Unreal.
To be clear, there are some issues with the bill that are being worked on by its Senate sponsor, Sen. Terry Link. And Rep. McSweeney is an avowed Rauner opponent. But, c’mon. He doesn’t want to sign McSweeney’s bill because it’s only about one county? Seriously?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:15 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Stop Illinois Big Coal Bailouts
Next Post: Rauner takes more heat on Quincy veterans’ home
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Well, it could be a pilot program
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:27 am
Does he have any conception of how many statutes apply only to Cook County? Sure, they don’t necessarily *say* “Cook County”, but they limit the application to, or exempt, counties over a certain population, a number only Cook has.
Comment by JoanP Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:29 am
Did he say he wouldn’t sign it? Complaining about it might not mean he’ll veto it, though he doesn’t have a great track record of taking small wins, you’re right.
And it is a little silly to only allow one county to do this. If it’s a good idea (I have no idea) then all counties should be able to. I get that Cook and to a lesser extent the Collars play more or less by their own rules, but that’s not the way it should be.
Comment by Perrid Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:31 am
Loyola Coach Moser said something in his speeches yesterday that the governor should listen to: It’s amazing what you can accomplish when you don’t care who gets the credit.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:40 am
Someone should explain to the Governor if you get a 1/4 loaf each week.for 4 weeks, you end up with the entire loaf. But if you insist on the entire loaf the first week, you often end up with nothing.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:46 am
Pilot programs are problematic under the IL Constitution:
Article IV, Section 13
SECTION 13. SPECIAL LEGISLATION
The General Assembly shall pass no special or local law when a general law is or can be made applicable. Whether a general law is or can be made applicable shall be a matter for judicial determination.
Cook County truly is unique - how is McHenry different from Kane, Lake, DuPage or Winnebago?
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:47 am
Initially, 3 years ago, I thought Rauner might have been able to accomplish some useful changes to the State. He has been nothing but a major disappointment, and this story is a perfect example of why.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:48 am
===how is McHenry different from Kane, Lake, DuPage or Winnebago? ===
DuPage got their own consolidation law out of the GA.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:50 am
“What I stand for is local control”
May I add ‘without any help from your state or federal government’.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:51 am
Some people learn, some people think they need to “teach”
Rauner has no idea how governing works, the art of political maneuvering or the science of 60 and 30…
… so I’m suppose to expect him to understand how this “all works” too?
That’s a lot … on me.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:52 am
The problem with “local control” is the state government can still undermine the local control by not allowing the local government to increase property taxes and by forcing local government to take on added expenses such as teachers’ pension cost, etc..
Comment by M Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 10:49 am
Didn’t GovJunk just boast about 10 pilot program he is doin’ with the Medicaid 11-15 waiver
Comment by Annonin' Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:49 am
So how can a township be abolished?
Read what the State Constitution says:
SECTION 5. TOWNSHIPS
The General Assembly shall provide by law for the formation of townships in any county when approved by county-wide referendum. Townships may be consolidated or merged, and one or more townships may be dissolved or divided, when approved by referendum in each township affected. All townships in a county may be dissolved when approved by a referendum in the total area in which township officers are elected.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
The McSweeney bill takes a step toward allowing voters in individual townships in McHenry County to vote on whether or not to abolish their township.
That, of course, is terrifying to township officials throughout Illinois.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:05 pm
1. If a township is abolished by it’s voters, who will do the jobs the townships currently do?
2.Would the workers at the township office be transferred to city or county government?
3. If the township covers more than one city/county, which city/county gets the township’s equipment?
There needs to be a transition period from one form of government to another.
Comment by Mama Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:23 pm
I do not often agree with Mr Rauner but the Township layer of government really could dissolve in many areas. The county already has oversight on some of their roles anyway. This could lower property taxes, lower wages and pension costs, and give power back to the people of the county.
Comment by Adj Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:32 pm
I agree with the sentiment. State legislation should not be so specific as to only apply to a small subset of the population, especially geographically-based. That said, you take what you can get when you can get it. Today McHenry, tomorrow another county, eventually you get enough votes to extend it to all.
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 1:33 pm
Mama I had the same question. If it takes a set amount of people to do the work, what is the advantage of them all doing it under one administration or several? Maybe save printing costs by all using the same printed stationary?
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 2:31 pm
There is no tax savings in dissolving a township as taxes will go to the city/village or county. There is no efficiency savings as city/village can not handle the general assistance portion of the township and a county would either require the residents to go to the county seat for assessors or road and bridge issues OR the county would create outpost offices costing tax payers MORE money.
There for townships are essential as a local government body.
Comment by UM No Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 5:47 pm