Quinn wants more time for appointees

By Jamey Dunn

Gov. Pat Quinn sought to push back the effective date of a bill that would oust many of his appointees from office.

Senate Bill 1 would automatically clear out employees once their appointed terms have expired. Quinn could reappoint anyone he chose, but all appointments would have to go through the Senate for approval. “For too long too many officials and appointees have served in expired terms without undergoing the constitutionally required public review before the Senate,” Senate President John Cullerton and Minority Leader Christine Radogno wrote in a letter they sent to Quinn earlier this year urging him to sign the bill. According to a Senate review of appointees, almost 550 are serving beyond their appointed terms and nearly 100 of those collect a salary for their service. Paid employees currently serving beyond their terms would be immediately out of a job, while those serving in unpaid positions would be removed in 30 days.

Quinn returned the bill to the Senate with one tweak: he wants the effective dates bumped back. If Quinn had signed the bill, it would have taken effect immediately. Instead, if the legislature approves Quinn’s change, the law would kick in July 1 for those appointed to paying jobs and October 1 for those holding unpaid positions.

Quinn said in his amendatory veto message that he needs the time to seek candidates for the jobs that the legislation would make vacant. “I applaud the sponsors for working to make the executive appointments process even more transparent. My recommendations for change would honor the intent of the sponsors but would also give citizens ample time to apply for a vacant position and allow a reasonable amount of time for identifying and recruiting qualified candidates,” Quinn said in the message.

Annie Thompson, a spokeswoman for Quinn, said the governor also wants to allow the public enough time to make nominations for any positions that may be vacated through a website the administration created to take input on the appointment process from Illinois residents.

“Finding people who are the perfect fit for a certain position is not a quick process. We would like to be able to take the amount of time necessary to find those candidates,” Thompson said.

The original bill had more than enough supporters in both chambers to potentially override the governor’s veto. It now returns to the Senate, where members could vote to accept the governor’s changes, override them or take no action and allow the bill to die. "At this point we're going to study the governor's action to see if it complies with the Constitution,” John Patterson, a spokesman for Cullerton, said in a written statement.

Illinois Senate talks gaming expansion

By Jamey Dunn

Illinois lawmakers rejected some changes made to bills by Gov. Pat Quinn and discussed a major gambling expansion on the first day of veto session.

The Illinois Senate is considering legislation to allow slot machines at horse racing tracks and new casinos in Chicago, the northern Illinois communities of Park City, Ford Heights and Rockford and the central Illinois town of Danville.

The Senate Gaming committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 3970 this afternoon. Sen. Terry Link, the bill’s sponsor and chairman of the committee, said he expects a committee vote on the measure soon, possibly as early as tomorrow.

The debate comes on the heels of a recent report by the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, which found that Illinois gambling revenues are at a 10-year low.

Opponents of the bill say it would do little to help struggling horse tracks but would instead start a push to eliminate horse racing in favor of the cheaper and more profitable slots machines. “It will transform six race tracks into land-based casinos that will do gambling that is very different than the gambling that they currently have going on,” said Anita Bedell, executive director of the Illinois Church Action on Alcohol and Addiction Problems, an anti-gambling organization.

Critics say slot machines and video poker are more dangerous in terms of addiction because of the fast-paced nature of the games, which give players nearly constant psychological encouragement to continue playing.

Current casino owners say new locations would cut into their profits by stealing some of their customer base. However, Link, a Waukegan Democrat, said that new casinos would not put any current facilities out of business, and it would be unfair to discourage competition.

Charles Griffin, mayor of Ford Heights, told the committee that his town needs the jobs and revenue a casino could bring. Griffin said his town is one of the poorest in the nation,and lacks adequate basic services, such as well-maintained sewer systems and a police force. Danville Mayor Scott Eisenhauer also encouraged the committee to approve the legislation, saying his community needs to replace manufacturing jobs it has lost in recent years.

Veto votes

Meanwhile, the House overrode some of Gov. Pat Quinn’s amendatory vetoes with little debate. Legislators rejected Quinn’s changes to House Bill 5154, which would seal public employee evaluations from the public. Quinn said the evaluations should be open, with the exception of law enforcement personnel for security and safety reasons.

House members also overruled Quinn’s addition to HB 5206, which would allow citizens to present ethics legislation to the General Assembly if they can gather 100,000 petition signatures. HB 5206 originally was meant to allow county officials to electronically purge the names of deceased voters from voting rolls.

If the Senate approves the House’s overrides — which requires a 36-vote super majority — the bills will become law as originally passed.

Citizens' initiative may not pass legal muster

By Jamey Dunn

An amendatory veto issued by Gov. Pat Quinn on Tuesday would allow citizens to present legislation related to campaign finance reform and ethics to the General Assembly for a vote, but it may also step on the toes of the Illinois Constitution.

If voters could collect 100,000 signatures, their proposal would be drafted into law, and the legislature would be required to take a vote on it. From the statement issues by Quinn:

The ethics initiative that I propose gives the people of our state the ultimate power to express and protect their interests: the power to change state law. Too often, issues such as ethics and campaign finance reform get pushed from the forefront. Voters need a safety valve to ensure that ideas, however inconvenient or unpopular for incumbent officeholders, proceed through the legislative process.

However, this may go too far in placing legislative power in the hands of citizens.

“The [Illinois] constitutional document sets down certain power that the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches have, and the legislature cannot just give away its power to introduce and pass laws. ... [These changes are] purporting by statute for the legislature to essentially cede part of its constitutional authority — to make laws — to citizens,” said political scientist Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois Springfield and director of the Sunshine Project, a nonprofit campaign contribution database connected to the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.

But Quinn does not agree. From the veto message:

The legislative power to pass laws is a mighty power. My recommendation below does not detract from the General Assembly’s constitutional authority. Under my proposal, the General Assembly retains its full lawmaking authority.

Redfield said the framers of the state Constitution made a clear decision not to include a broader citizens’ initiative procedure. “The [Constitutional Convention] delegates considered initiative. They knew about the California model … and they consciously rejected it. They crafted a limited citizens’ initiative process. … This [amendatory veto] attempts to essentially amend the Constitution by statute, and you can’t do that.”

Redfield said it is doubtful that the legislature would approve the veto or an earlier amendatory veto that would create an open primary election system. He says they are likely just vehicles to get Quinn’s message out to voters.

“There’s no hope that either one of them is going to get accepted in the legislature, but it is an easy way to very publicly assert a position. To be for or against X or Y … and you don’t have to rent a hall or send out a direct mailer.”

Quinn wants police evaluations sealed

By Jamey Dunn

Employees working in state law enforcement would have their performance evaluations sealed from the public under an amendatory veto issued by Gov. Pat Quinn.

House Bill 5154 originally blocked all public employees’ performance evaluations from potentially being accessed under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). However, Quinn said in his veto message that such a broad exemption would undermine FOIA reform approved just last year.

Quinn said law enforcement evaluations could be used to influence the criminal justice process. “If disclosed, these evaluations could be used by criminal suspects or defendants to undermine a police investigation or attack the credibility and integrity of a police officer."

Opponents say it is too soon to make any changes to the new FOIA regulations. “This is poor public policy on so many levels. The new FOIA law needs to be given time to work before being assaulted with attempts to make changes and exemptions. We urged the Governor to veto the entire bill and still believe that was the best action to take.” Dennis DeRossett, executive director of the Illinois Press Association, said in a written statement.

“We really wanted the governor to completely veto the legislation because we feel transparency is the best alternative," said Melissa Hahn, president of the Illinois News Broadcasters Association. However, we are pleased that he at least took the step of limiting the scope of the bill to police officers. … People should be able to find out if all sorts of public employees -- whether it be teachers police of state government workers -- are doing their jobs and are doing their jobs well. After all, we’re all paying for it.”

Supporters of the original legislation point to its bipartisan support from lawmakers and say that opening up the records could interfere with the evaluation process. Managers considering the possibility of an evaluation becoming public may not be as honest with criticism.

“We had urged the governor to sign the bill. It was commonsense legislation to preserve the confidentiality of private records containing personal info ... not just for reasons of personal privacy but in order to ensure that managers at all levels of government know that their evaluations will serve their intended purpose,”said Anders Lindall, spokesman for Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, state government's largest union.

Quinn wants voters to present reforms

By Jamey Dunn

Gov. Pat Quinn issued another amendatory veto today that drastically changes the content of the original bill.

House Bill 5206 allows election officials to electronically remove deceased voters from registration rolls. Quinn left the content of the bill intact but tacked on provisions that would create a citizens' initiative process for ideas pertaining to “ethical conduct and campaign finance reform.”

Earlier this month, Quinn plugged an open primary provision into a bill that originally required the State Board of Elections to post voter guides with candidate information on its website.

Under the new version of HB 5206, proposals that receive 100,000 petition signatures would be drafted into a bill and voted on by the General Assembly. If the legislation failed to become law, it would go onto the ballot as an advisory referendum, which does not have any binding legal power.

Quinn floated the idea of allowing voter initiatives for ethics measures last year while the legislature was fighting it out over campaign finance reform, and proposals from his Illinois Reform Commission were largely failing to gain traction. Quinn's amendatory veto could raise questions of constitutionality. Check back tomorrow for more analysis.

Pay-to-play ban becomes law

Monday did become Ethics Day. After three years of back-and-forth, the Illinois House and Senate finally agreed and enacted landmark ethics reforms that will become effective January 1. The governor and some legislators already are trying to expand the so-called pay-to-play ban, but that could take just as long as the first effort. In the meantime, Monday’s action is likely to generate a lot of campaign mail as incumbents and candidates enter the home stretch before the November 4 elections.

Meanwhile, as I write this, budget negotiators from both chambers and both political parties are meeting behind closed doors to hash out a plan that would prevent state parks and historic sites from closing this fall, as well as prevent hundreds of state employees from losing their jobs. Whether they will strike a compromise, however, won’t be known until Tuesday, when both chambers will reconvene in another off-season legislative session.

All day Monday, which included multiple special sessions called by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, served as a perfect example of how everything will change in January. In addition to new ethics laws that will affect the governor’s fundraising abilities, January marks the end of Senate President Emil Jones’ reign. Throughout the day, there was an acute awareness that Jones is on his way out of office with numerous individuals interested in taking his place. More on that later.

One set of ethics reform down, more to go
The Illinois Senate agreed with the House to override Blagojevich’s changes to HB 824, meaning new campaign contribution rules will take effect in the new year. Businesses holding state contracts worth more than $50,000 will not be able to donate to the political campaigns of the officeholder who signs the contract.

The Senate president said the new law contained in HB 824 doesn’t go far enough. “It turns hard money into soft money,” Jones said, later adding, “They’ll still be able to give the soft money through the back door.” He meant that instead of donating directly to the officeholder, state contactors will still be able to give money to statewide political parties that turn around and filter the money to the officeholder who signs the contract, anyway.

Jones supports the governor’s proposals, which would expand the so-called pay-to-play ban. The governor’s amendatory veto language was inserted into a new bill. It would:

• Ban businesses that hold significant state contracts from donating to legislators and statewide political parties, as well as statewide officeholders;
• Prohibit legislators from working second jobs in any unit of government, with some exceptions;
• Clarify the process by which legislators vote to accept their pay raises.

The Senate sponsor, Chicago Democratic Sen. James DeLeo, said SB 780 would level the playing field and help legislators avoid the perception that money buys influence.

Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and a main force behind HB 824, said it felt odd, but she had to oppose the new measure during a Senate committee Monday evening. She said the more expansive ethics legislation is “not ready for prime time, yet.”

She said she supports the concept but believes the governor’s proposal isn’t the right vehicle for enacting contribution limits on legislators. Banning state contractors from donating to elected officials who have no control over state contracts could invite a legal challenge based on the First Amendment that protects free speech, she said. She also questioned the fallout of prohibiting active state legislators from also working in some public sector jobs but not others. And she said the one aspect that would be ready to go if it were proposed as a stand-alone measure is the portion that would clarify the system of approving legislative pay raises.

Sen. James Clayborne, a Belleville Democrat, agreed with Canary and said the governor’s proposals need some more work, but he voted to advance the measure to the full chamber in hopes of working through more changes before a final vote.

Restoring budget cuts
Meanwhile, budgeteers are working behind closed doors in an effort to compromise to restore some of the governor’s $1.4 billion in budget cuts, which are resulting in plans to close 11 state parks and 13 historic sites, lay off hundreds of public employees and drastically reduce state funding for such human services as substance abuse treatment and prevention.

Earlier this month, the House approved two measures that would sweep about $221 million from special funds to plug some but not all of the budget holes. (See the spending portion in SB 1103.)

Sen. Donne Trotter, a Chicago Democrat and budget negotiator, said the Senate Democrats found $42 million of that $221 million that they would like to spend in a different way than approved by the House. That includes $37 million the House included to reimburse mass transit districts for the free rides granted to seniors and people with disabilities enacted earlier this year. The Senate Democrats would take that out and shift the funding, for instance, to increase the amount of money for college grants through the Monetary Award Program. The House also would restore funding for constitutional officers at 100 percent of the original funding level, while the Senate Democrats would restore them at 75 percent.

Republicans are involved in the budget negotiations. According to Patty Schuh, spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson, the GOP Caucus prioritizes restoring funding for state parks, historic sites and human services. But members argue that it doesn’t make sense to restore funding to the parks and historic sites and then sweep money from the special fund dedicated to the Department of Natural Resources.

Will Monday be Ethics Day? UPDATED

The Illinois Senate will return to Springfield to consider major ethics legislation, presumably in time to avoid a constitutional challenge about when an ambiguous 15-day clock expires.

Senate President Emil Jones Jr., who previously said he would not reconvene his chamber until after the November elections, said in a statement that he now is calling his members back to the Capitol to act on ethics reforms “only at the request of my friend Barrack Obama.”

Here’s the statement from the U.S. senator’s campaign: “Sen. Obama called Sen. Jones [Wednesday] to offer his strong support for the ethics reforms pending before the Illinois Senate and urged him to pass them at the earliest possible opportunity.”

Note that the date has not been set for that regular Senate session; however, the chamber will be back — and so will the House — Monday, September 22 because Gov. Rod Blagojevich called a special session to focus on ethics. But the governor’s proclamation requires the General Assembly to focus on Blagojevich’s version of ethics reforms, which the House already defeated last week.

But, as is common in Springfield, some legislative ideas come back from the dead. Rep. Jay Hoffman, a Collinsville Democrat and Blagojevich ally, has introduced another bill, HB 6699, that would do the same thing as the governor’s amendatory veto of HB 824. The governor wants to clarify the process of accepting legislative pay raises so lawmakers had to vote “yes” on public record, stop legislators from “double dipping” by working in another unit of government at the same time they’re serving in the General Assembly and require more detailed disclosure of lobbying work done by legislators or their spouses. See the background in our previous blog posts.

Cindy Davidsmeyer, Jones’ spokeswoman, said the Senate president last week promised Sen. Don Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat, that he could call the unanimously approved HB 824 for a vote to override the governor’s changes. If that happens as expected, then businesses holding state contracts worth more than $50,000 could not donate to the political campaigns of the governor.

But Davidsmeyer said the vote to override the governor’s changes would have to be done in a regular session, which has not yet been set because some Senate members have conflicts with Monday’s special session.

She could only say that the Senate could take up a “variety of issues,” and there’s plenty to choose from. The chamber could consider actions taken by the House last week, including restoring budget cuts so that 11 state parks and 13 historic sites wouldn’t have to close this fall, as well as restoring cuts to human services and state offices that could result in hundreds of layoffs of state employees. The Senate also could consider the governor’s changes to Senate bills, including the another ethics bill, SB 2190. The governor would ban state legislators and officers from accepting political donations from government employees at any level, punishable by as much as a $10,000 fine for each offense.

Obama's campaign followed up with this: "Sen. Obama is pleased that Senator Jones has decided to take immediate steps to move ethics reform forward, and he plans to monitor the bill's progress next week."

Pressure builds

Senate President Emil Jones Jr. is under increasing pressure to call his chamber back to Springfield to vote on ethics reforms and budget restorations already approved by the House last week. But the pressure affects him differently than his members, as he's retiring in January. It's the remaining Senate Democrats who feel the most heat.

Jones’ office said Friday that the chamber would not return until the regularly scheduled fall session November 12, about a week after the General Election and about nine weeks after the House overturned Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s changes to unanimously approved ethics reforms and budget cuts. Jones’ decision starts a constitutional debate about when a 15-day clock starts to run before the ethics reform dies in legislative limbo. See more about the constitutional debate in our previous blog.

To demonstrate widespread support for immediate action on the ethics legislation, four constitutional officers — Comptroller Dan Hynes, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias — joined a bipartisan group of state senators in Chicago to urge Jones to call his chamber back into session before the elections. (I listened to the live audio provided in Springfield.)

Hynes said the Senate president has two choices: He can call the Senate back now to give legislators an opportunity to vote on the ban on so-called pay-to-play politics before voters head to the polls, or he can wait until after elections and increase the chance of being sued and to make the electorate feel even more disengaged. We wrote about a potential lawsuit last week.

Lisa Madigan, Illinois attorney general, also urged Jones to act now to avoid a lengthy and costly lawsuit about when the 15-day clock starts to tick. A lawsuit would put her in a tight spot because she would have to defend the state in court.

Members of Jones’ leadership team, including Sen. Debbie Halvorson of Crete and Sen. Terry Link of Waukegan, joined the news conference, along with the Senate sponsor of the ethics bill, Democratic Sen. Don Harmon of Oak Park. He said while he agrees with Jones’ interpretation of the state Constitution, the news conference demonstrates that the chamber is ready, willing and able to return immediately to avoid that constitutional challenge.

Senate Republican leaders also chimed in, saying they have supported the bipartisan effort but have opposed the Democratic “roadblock,” meaning Jones. Deputy Minority Leader Christine Radogno of Lemont said her Democratic counterparts elected Jones, so they should have some influence in forcing the Senate president’s hand to act now.

Hynes pointed out that the only one who could force Jones to do anything would be the governor, who is unlikely to call a special session of the legislature to override his own veto.

Such good government groups as the Campaign for Political Reform, the Better Government Association and the League of Women Voters also stood beside them. Dawn Clark Netsch, former state senator and state comptroller, spoke on behalf of voters. She said even if Jones is correct in his interpretation of the state Constitution about when the 15-day clock starts, it doesn’t matter to already skeptical voters who want to know where candidates stand before heading to the polls.

We're still waiting to hear from Jones' office this evening.

The Senate delays ethics reform

The Illinois Senate does not plan to return to Springfield until its regularly scheduled fall session starts November 12, and there’s a debate about whether that means highly anticipated ethics reforms will die before then.

The House on Wednesday overrode Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s changes to ethics legislation that would ban any governor from accepting political donations from businesses that hold state contracts worth more than $50,000. The Senate must agree to override those changes, or else the whole thing dies.

It gets hairy because there’s a time limit involved. But there’s also an argument about whether the state Constitution requires the Senate to act within 15 days of the House action — or whether the 15-day clock starts only after the Senate convenes session and reads the House bills into record.

Cindy Davidsmeyer, spokeswoman for Senate President Emil Jones Jr., said today that the president’s staff believes the chamber has 15 days once the Senate reads the actions into record, which would not be done until after the November elections.

Article 4, Section 9 of the State Constitution reads:

(c) The house to which a bill is returned shall immediately enter the governor's objections upon its journal. If within 15 calendar days after such entry that house by a record vote of three-fifths of the members elected passes the bill [which the House did with ethics legislation and other bills Wednesday night], it shall be delivered immediately to the second house. If within 15 calendar days after such delivery the second house by a record vote of three-fifths of the members elected passes the bill, it becomes law.

The House delivered the ethics bill to the Senate today. Steve Brown, spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan, said: “We have no comment. It’s up to the Senate.”

Patty Schuh, spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson, said this has never happened in the Senate before. By interpreting the Constitution in a “unique” way, she said, the leadership is jeopardizing the ethics reform. Ultimately, the legislation could land in court and further delay the implementation of the contribution limits. “In the meantime, the fundraising machines keep rolling."

Ann Lousin, a 1970 constitutional convention delegate, a former House parliamentarian and a current law professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, agrees with the Senate’s interpretation. Although she disclaimed that she has not been a House parliamentarian since January 1975, said she recalls, “The House is not the House unless it’s in session.” It follows, she said, that if the Senate is not in session, then it cannot receive the bills acted upon by the other chamber. She compared it to getting a letter on Sunday, which you can’t actually receive until the post office opens for business Monday.

Charlie Wheeler, longtime Statehouse reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times and current director of the Public Affairs Reporting program at the University of Illinois at Springfield, said while the more logical argument would be that the clock doesn’t start running until the message has been read into the record, the interpretation could be argued either way.

Someone would have to sue and argue that they’re being harmed in some way by the contribution limits, and he said that most likely would have to be a business that holds a big contract with the state and wants to donate to the officeholder.

What’s clear, he said, is that in the few decades he’s followed state government, these “nitty gritty, ministerial type of questions” never came up because there always was an understood protocol and a certain degree of civility. “In my mind, it’s just another indication of the unprecedented breakdown in the kind of basic cooperation and mutual decency that you need for an organization, and in this case, the organization being the General Assembly, to function smoothly.”

Cindi Canary, director the Chicago-based Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, has been one of the driving forces behind the contribution limits. She said she does not intend to “lie down and accept Emil Jones’ rule by fiat.” She said the bill is far from dead. Here’s the rest of her e-mail:

I have consulted with at least half a dozen attorneys today, and they are pretty evenly split on whether the clock starts now or can be delayed until the Senate returns. The only thing that they agree on is that this has never been litigated, so it is a gray area. I, for one, have no interest in seeing this become the test case.

We know that we have a nexus between large campaign contributions and state contracts, and the Senate has it in its power to enact this workable solution tomorrow. After three years of fighting this battle, I don't understand why, when the legislature knows what to do to address a problem, they continue to let politics and ego trump effective government. The bill is far from dead, but it is disheartening that another round of games playing has been proposed by President Jones.

The devil is in the details with ethics reforms - UPDATED

Gov. Rod Blagojevich could have signed significant campaign contribution limits into law, targeting “pay to play politics” starting January 1 (CORRECTION: Both the legislation and the executive order would not have taken effect until January 1. I regret the error originally published in this post). Instead, he used his executive authority to change the plan, but advocates of the ethics reforms say it's questionable whether his actions have legal teeth that could punish those who break the rules.

But it’s hard to tell either way because the governor’s office has not filed the exact language on public record, yet. (UPDATE: One day later, the governor's veto message is now available here.) Some legislators believe the governor’s actions are controversial and intended to kill, or simply delay, implementation of the underlying bill, HB 824.

Through press release and a Chicago news conference, Blagojevich said he issued an executive order to enact ethics reforms that the legislature unanimously approved in May. (Listen here.) But he also used his amendatory veto power to change the legislation, sparking questions about the constitutionality of his use of executive powers. (Read background about the scope of the amendatory veto here.)

The ethics reforms originally were designed to target contractors who try to influence state business by donating to the political campaigns of elected officials. The idea is to prohibit businesses holding state contracts worth more than $50,000 from donating to political campaigns of constitutional officers who dole out those contracts. According to his news release, Blagojevich also wants to extend the ban to apply to individual legislators, political candidates and statewide political parties, as well.

At the same time, the governor used his amendatory veto powers to add new provisions to the ethics law. Some legislators, including Democratic Sen. Susan Garrett of Lake Forest, said his changes could have merit and should be considered. But some legislators also believe that the way in which he proposes the changes poses a potential constitutional problem. His changes through an amendatory veto would:

• Clarify the process of adopting legislative pay raises by requiring lawmakers to vote “yes” to accept a raise, which targets a confusing system subject to headlines this year;
• Stop legislators from “double dipping” by working in another unit of government at the same time they’re serving in the General Assembly. But he would make exceptions for legislators who are teachers, school counselors, university instructors, police officers, firefighters or “elected officials.” Sen. Mike Jacobs, an East Moline Democrat, said the provision aims directly at Chicago legislators;
  
• And require more detailed disclosure of lobbying work done by legislators or their spouses.

The General Assembly can accept or reject the governor’s amendatory vetoes, but either way, the reforms included in the governor’s executive order will apply to all state agencies January 1.

Cindy Canary said she met with the governor’s office this morning and that while she’s pleased that Blagojevich enacted the provisions within HB 824, she’s also concerned that the executive order lacks teeth and fails to pass constitutional muster. She is director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform in Chicago and helped draft the legislation. Her concern, she said, is that “the legislature doesn’t police how the governor or anybody else implements their executive orders. Those are kind of in-house rules. And they don’t have penalties.”

She also called the amendatory veto an “interesting maneuver” because it would enact brand new policies without allowing the legislature to debate or change the proposals. For instance, she questions the effect of expanding the contributions ban to state political parties. “State parties don’t make contracts using public money. So I’m not sure that it’s a remedy that fits the problem.”

(UPDATE: The governor's veto message, now available, says:

Given that all constitutional officers and members of the General Assembly participate in creating, funding, directing, and overseeing state contracts, this ethics law must bar political contributions to each uniformly in order to achieve the desired goal of a fair and open procurement process, stripped of any conflicts of interest. In addition to the failure to include governmental actors critical to the procurement process, House Bill 824 leaves a gaping loophole, permitting covered state contractors to contribute to political committees of state parties, which are not barred from funneling the contributions back to the government officials in question. Only by strengthening the contribution ban will the citizens of the state gain greater assurance that government contractors will not endeavor to unduly influence the system ... A more comprehensive approach, therefore, not only serves the public interest in eliminating potential undue influence and the appearance of such influence, but also strengthens the state’s interest that is needed to override the business entities’ First Amendment interest in contributing to political candidates.)

Canary added that the so-called double dipping provision seems inconsistent that legislators could work as firefighters or township officials but not sanitation workers. She named many constitutional questions, which could be problematic because legislators can either accept or reject his changes. Because they can’t modify the changes, Canary said, “I really think this is the kind of policy that is better done in a public hearing with a lot of input and thoughtful consideration and very serious scrutiny to avoid the constitutional pitfalls and unintended consequences.”

The timing also is curious, said Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat who is in Denver for the Democratic National Convention. “I find it curious that he’s chosen the first day of the Democratic Convention to do this with most of the Springfield reporters out of town, with most of the legislators and other advocates for different policy considerations in Denver,” Lang said from his cell phone. “He may say it’s a coincidence, but I don’t think anybody’s going to buy that.”

His perception of today's announcement? “The timing is all about trying to make something happen that he thinks will have some repercussions and doing it at a time when he can minimize those repercussions.”

The legislative process also is at play, here. The governor’s office had to act by August 29, or else the bill would have become law without his signature. Brian Williamsen, Blagojevich's spokesman, also said the governor "has been looking forward to taking this positive action for some time."

Senate Republicans perceive the governor’s actions as a potential poison pill, regardless of whether they believe the changes could have merit. “I can’t comment on something I haven’t seen other than it’s controversial,” said Patty Schuh, spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson. “And what it’s done is jeopardize the whole thing instead of just doing the right thing and signing the bill that the General Assembly put on his desk — and then bringing forth any other ideas he might have.”

The governor, in a news release, said he waited more than three years for the General Assembly to send him a vehicle that he could act on. But one more question remains: Why did he have to wait for the legislature to send him legislation when he could have issued an executive order to prevent pay-to-play with or without legislation on his desk? All other constitutional officers already had used their in-house rules to prevent such campaign contributions.

The one sure thing, Canary said, is, now that Blagojevich publicly stated that he’s enacting a ban on pay-to-play politics, “everybody’s watching.”

One amendatory veto slips through

Starting in January, all parents will be able to decide whether to extend their health insurance coverage to their children up to age 26. Veterans will be able stay on their parent’s policies until age 30.

The Illinois Senate on Tuesday agreed with House to accept Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s changes to legislation he made through his amendatory veto powers.

The Senate approved House Bill 5285, but it rejected changes the governor made to House Bill 4201, which Blagojevich changed to extend property tax exemptions to all veterans with service-connected disabilities. The Senate failed to secure enough votes, with 15 voting present as a way to show they don’t oppose the concept. But many do oppose the governor’s method of changing legislation to initiate major new policies without debate.

Sen. Dan Rutherford, a Chenoa Republican, voted against his own bill because he said the governor’s amendatory veto prevents legislators and citizens from dealing with the policy in a public forum. “We’re in a political debate here,” he said. “We’re not doing this as a good public policy process.”

Rutherford also said he hopes one of the governor’s amendatory vetoes ends up in court, which could help define a rather vague power in the state Constitution. His comments echo statements made by Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, a Chicago Democrat who said last week that the courts could help “answer this question that has been so contentious between the two branches ever since 1971,” when the current Constitution took effect. Read more background here.

Sen. Dan Kotowski, a Park Ridge Democrat, said during floor debate that the governor’s changes to let adult dependents remain on their parents' insurance policies is an improvement. “This is a great opportunity to address a major challenging issue for parents and families,” he said. “It also gives employers a chance to provide this coverage, and employers don’t have to pay for it.”

But several Republicans said that the new law could negatively affect small businesses. While the young adults can be among the healthiest policyholders, Sen. Dale Righter, a Mattoon Republican, said it could be cheaper for parents to buy individual policies for their dependents rather than lump them in with their group policies and raise the price for their employers.

Other amendatory vetoes are expected, particularly on ethics legislation that Blagojevich has repeatedly said he looks forward to “improving.” He has to act before August 29, or the original version automatically becomes law. He also has said he could change as many as 50 bills.

Watch for Illinois Issues magazine's September print edition to gain more context about this and previous governors' uses of the amendatory veto power.

The right thing, or the wrong way?

There is a process. And House Speaker Michael Madigan will never let this or any governor forget that. He believes in the legislature as an institution, and the he will not stand by if anyone tries to circumvent the legislative process. The House took action tonight that some believe could lead to another court challenge of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s executive authority. Others truly agree with the governor’s changes, which include expanding health insurance options to young adults and giving property tax breaks to injured veterans.

But the two changes, along with some of Blagojevich’s previous agenda items, bring to light two fundamental questions about the policymaking process and the legislative prerogative:

• What is the scope of the executive power to use an amendatory veto to change legislation other than for minor changes?
• And what is the rulemaking authority of the executive branch, and is that power limited by a legislative panel’s power to review the proposed rules?

They’re both questions that have been asked since the adoption of the 1970 Illinois Constitution. My boss and executive editor of Illinois Issues magazine, Dana Heupel, asked, “How far can governors go with amendatory vetoes?” in 1999, when he wrote from the Statehouse for Copley News Service. In that article, he analyzes then-Gov. George Ryan’s use of the amendatory veto to change how generic drugs could be approved for use in Illinois.

“His amendatory veto of the generic drug bill, along with others he has issued, will set in motion a process that House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, has followed for a decade because he believes governors sometimes abuse their authority in changing legislation. ‘What he’s concerned about is a preemptive strikes by the governor’s office on the work of the legislature,’ said Madigan’s spokesman, Steve Brown.”

The speaker’s position hasn’t changed.

That sets up this summer’s controversy. Blagojevich is embarking on what he calls a “rewrite to do right” campaign. He recently said he’ll change some 50 bills. See details of the first two amendatory vetoes at the bottom of this post.

The House tonight approved two of the governor’s amendatory vetoes, and some legislators supported because they agreed with the governor’s changes, while others — House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, among them — voted to accept the governor’s amendatory vetoes so that the issue could land in court.

Currie, a Chicago Democrat, chairs a special House Rules Committee that carries out Madigan’s longstanding process of determining whether the changes are germane to the original intent of the legislation. If the committee members think the change violates the intent, then the bill usually dies. On the other hand, if there’s a motion to override or to accept the governor’s changes, then the measure goes straight to the floor for a vote. It also needs approval by the Senate.

Tonight’s vote to accept the governor’s changes about health insurance and veterans’ property taxes, then, allows the separation of powers to be studied, again, Currie said on the House floor.

“I think that the lack of clarity from the court decisions may mean that it’s time for a second crack for the judicial branch. Maybe we ought to invite the question before the courts whether this particularly amendatory veto, for example, does go beyond the scope of that authority provided in the Constitution. For that reason, I would suggest that an eye vote may help us answer this question that has been so contentious between the two branches ever since 1971.”

The intent of the delegates at the 1970 constitutional convention was to allow the governor to correct technical errors or minor drafting mistakes, not give him or her carte blanche to totally rewrite legislation, said Charlie Wheeler, longtime Statehouse reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times and current director of the Public Affairs Reporting graduate program at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

To this day, however, the state Constitution does not specify the scope of the amendatory veto power. Courts have ruled that the governor is limited in that he or she can’t completely rewrite legislation and can’t change the fundamental purpose of bills. But what qualifies as changing the purpose of legislation is open to interpretation, leading numerous governors to try to use the power as broadly as possible.

“There are bounds beyond which a governor can’t go, but this particular issue before us isn’t one of them,” Wheeler said.

Blagojevich said at a Statehouse press conference tonight that he believes the Constitution is very clear. “The governor has complete opportunity to be able to take bills like that and rewrite them, and in this particular case, expand them and widen them. And the General Assembly can then choose to approve or not approve or ignore what I did. To the credit of the House of Representatives, they acted on it. And they voted in favor of that [health insurance] expansion, and it’s pretty good.”

Wheeler, who spoke with me before the House accepted Blagojevich’s first two amendatory vetoes, referred to the governor’s “rewrite to do right” campaign as the “rewrite to screw things up campaign,” basically with the intent to make Madigan look like an obstructionist. But Wheeler stressed that the debate about Blagojevich’s amendatory vetoes is deeper than a manifestation of the personality battles and power struggles between Madigan and Blagojevich. It’s more of a constitutional question about the checks-and-balances system between the legislative and the executive branches.

“In my mind, I think Madigan has the better argument because Madigan has a long history as somebody who’s very concerned about legislative process,” Wheeler said. “He’s concerned about the institution. He cares about that stuff. And Blagojevich has sort of a shorter history of following the Constitution, the statutes, administrative regulations, when they’re convenient. And when they’re not convenient, ‘Hey, they’re advisory.’”

That’s exactly the argument Blagojevich used when a bipartisan panel of legislators rejected his previous health care expansions. The governor tried to use his executive authority to expand state-sponsored health care to middle-income adults, but the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules rejected the plan because members believed there was no money to cover the health care expansion and that the administration lacks authority to initiate the plan without going through the legislative process. The governor said he would expand the program anyway because the panel only served an advisory role. The expansions, however, landed in court and actually were stopped.

To send a message that the governor can’t enact such programs without legislative oversight, Madigan started attaching language to the end of bills that would require the administration’s proposed rules to come back before the General Assembly before they could be enacted.

While the Constitution is unclear about some executive powers and legislative oversight, it remains crystal clear that Madigan will do whatever necessary to preserve the legislative prerogative.

Here are the two amendatory vetoes Blagojevich so far has issued and that the House has accepted:

HB 5285, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Chuck Jefferson of Rockford and Sen. Rickey Hendon of Chicago.
Original intent: College students could stay on their parents’ health insurance plans for a year if they took a medical leave of absence or reduced their course loads to part time because of an illness or injury.
Governor’s AV: All parents could decide whether to extend their health insurance coverage to their children up to age 26. Veterans could stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 30.

HB 4201, sponsored by Republicans Rep. Keith Sommer of Morton and Sen. Dan Rutherford of Chenoa.
Original intent: Extended a tax increment-financing district in the Village of Downs.
Governor’s AV: Extend property tax exemptions to all veterans with a service-connected disability certified by the U. S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The more disabled they’re labeled by the federal system, the higher the property tax exemption.

Ready, set, repeat

Reminiscent of last year, a whole host of state policy issues remain up in the air throughout the summer. Inaction mostly rests on the shoulders of Democrats, who are repeating history by agreeing on practically nothing. The main culprits are Gov. Rod Blagojevich and House Speaker Michael Madigan, each of whom blames the other for lack of action. Meanwhile, Illinois is in its ninth year without a capital construction plan, campaign funding reform remains dormant, many state services and agencies are operating with stagnant or decreased funding and long-term costs of health care and pensions continue to compound.

Legislators and the governor will return to Springfield this week with lots to talk about, but little progress is anticipated. Here’s a chronological list of activities with some context.

Today: Comptroller Dan Hynes issued a statement that he would not cut the checks for pay raises for state legislators and officers if they are enacted because the General Assembly never gave him authority to spend the necessary money. “We cannot implement the pay raises without an appropriation. But more importantly, I am of the opinion that this is no time for pay raises,” he said in a release, citing budget cuts for social services and Medicaid providers. The House rejected the pay raises, but the Senate has yet to do so. In the larger scheme of things, the pay raises simply are a battle of public perception. While such state services as substance abuse treatment struggle to meet demand because of $43 million in budget cuts, it would look disingenuous if legislators received their annual 3 percent cost-of-living adjustments at the same time they receive significant pay raises, costing about $1.1 million just for constitutional officers, legislators and top state agency officials, according to the comptroller’s office. That doesn't count pay raises for judges.

Tuesday: Expect Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s idea to move about 140 state employee positions from Springfield three hours south to be rejected by a bipartisan legislative review panel. Expect that rejection to be followed by the governor’s statement that the move is going to go forward, anyway. Lots of union-backed employees will be up in arms again. Meanwhile, they’re still working under last year’s contract with the state while their union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, remains gridlocked (click this link and scroll down) with the administration. Among the key sticking points are employee wages and employee contributions to health care and pension benefits.

Tuesday and Wednesday: Gov. Rod Blagojevich called legislators back to the Capitol to address two major issues: funding for education on Tuesday and funding for capital construction projects Wednesday. But neither session meets until late in the afternoon, giving legislators time throughout the day to attend various events at the annual State Fair in Springfield. Governor’s Day (a.k.a. Democrats’ Day) is Wednesday and Republican Day is Thursday. Watch for political fireworks off stage.

Ongoing: The governor says he’ll “rewrite to do right,” his slogan for changing agreed-upon bills to include his agenda. If the General Assembly rejects his changes, then the underlying bill dies. So far, he’s changed two bills. One would allow all adults up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ health insurance plans. The original intent was limited to college students who took a medical leave or who reduced their course loads to part time because of an illness or injury. They would have been covered for a year on their parents' plans. A second amendatory veto would extend property tax exemptions to all veterans with service-connected disabilities certified by the U. S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The original bill regarded a tax increment financing district in the Village of Downs. Blagojevich has said he will continue amending numerous bills in his Rewrite to Do Right campaign, “to take positive action on legislation that has been sent to him by the General Assembly,” according to a statement from Brian Williamsen, his spokesman.

August 29: Later this month marks the deadline for the governor to sign, change or reject ethics reforms sent to his desk in June. His office repeatedly has said he doesn’t think the ethics reforms go far enough. One potential amendment could include banning state contractors from donating to statewide political parties. The original legislation, which received unanimous approval by the General Assembly in May, only prevented state contractors holding contracts worth $50,000 or more from donating to statewide officeholders who sign the contracts.

Also coming up: One of the House Democrats’ point people on education, Rep. Mike Smith of Canton, announced that he’ll host a series of public hearings to consider a proposal to abolish property taxes for school funding by 2010. It’s been floated by Sen. James Meeks, a Chicago Democrat who previously threatened to run against Blagojevich for governor in the absence of education funding reforms. Meeks didn’t run, but he also didn’t get what he wanted. So here we go again. Add education funding reform to a huge pile of politically sensitive Statehouse issues that likely will grab some headlines but will remain stalled, at least before the November elections.