House Republicans pick new leader

Western Springs Republican Rep. Jim Durkin

By Jamey Dunn

Illinois House Republicans chose Western Springs Rep. Jim Durkin as their new leader today.

Outgoing House Minority Leader Tom Cross plans to vacate his leadership position to run for a statewide office. It is presumed that Cross will make a bid for state treasurer. He would not confirm that today, only saying that he would make an announcement soon.

Cross, who has served in the House  since 1993, was considering a run for the attorney general’s office if Attorney General Lisa Madigan ran for a different office. But she decided to run for reelection. Members of Cross’ caucus have been jockeying for his position for months.

Today, Durkin won the job. He was up against Springfield Rep. Raymond Poe, who has served in the House sine 1995. Over the last few days, Poe took hits from critics over his history of receiving campaign support from unions and his stance on pension reform. Poe was one of several Republicans who voted against changes to the pension systems proposed by House Speaker Michael Madigan and Cross. “I represent my district well,” Poe said. “I think I’m on the right side of that issue.”

Republicans were hit hard in last year’s election, as Democrats won supermajorities in both chambers. Today, party members emphasized unity. During today’s Springfield meeting, which lasted less than an hour, Poe withdrew his bid and made the motion to nominate Durkin for minority leader. According to Republicans who were in the closed-door meeting, no members voted against Durkin.

“I didn’t have the votes here today,” Poe said. “One thing about every legislator, we can count. We count over on the House floor every day. We know where our votes are. I knew today that it so happens my vote weren’t here. There’s seven people missing. I think a large part of those was mine. And for the welfare and the unity of the party, I don’t think we need these scrapes, scrabbles whatever you want to call them. I think what we need to be is unified, and the message today is 47 strong.”

Durkin was first sworn into the House in 1995. He served until 2003. He made a failed bid against U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin for Durbin's Senate seat in 2002 and returned to the Illinois House in 2005. “The task is to unite our party in that we are one, we are a solid group of 47 Republicans, and that we are unified. To me that is the most important job that I have right now with our members. We have had some divisiveness in the past, but the fact is, it’s over. And that’s what we heard in this meeting.”

Durkin played a key role in recent high-profile ethics proceedings in the chamber. He served as co-chair of the special House impeachment committee that determined there was enough evidence to move forward with the impeachment of now-incarcerated former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Durkin and Skokie Democratic Rep. Lou Lang made arguments for expelling Chicago Democratic Rep. Derrick Smith before another special House committee. After Smith was charged with accepting a bribe, the House voted to remove him. But he won the seat back in last year’s election and is now a House member again.

Durkin did not talk much about policy after the vote today. He did reaffirm his opposition to same-sex marriage when asked about his stance. Durkin had once been viewed as a potential “yes” vote by same-sex marriage supporters. He also said that he would not take a stance on pension ideas that are trickling out from a special committee now working to create proposed pension changes until the group has settled on a proposal.

"We will work to try and find resolution to the pension problem. I believe it is a priority.” While unity seemed to be the word of the day, Durkin acknowledged that not all House Republicans will share his views, and he said he does not expect them to vote as a bloc on every issue. “We have a very diverse caucus, but we’re going to use that diversity to our advantage this next coming [election] cycle. I’m excited about the prospects of the future,” Durkin said today after the vote.

Durkin said another priority is rebuilding the House Republican election funds, which he said are “limited.” But he acknowledged that it could be a challenge in the short term. “Were talking about an election cycle where you have a very heated governor’s race. There’s going to be a lot of money that’s going to be placed in the governor’s race, so we have to make the best use of every dollar that we have in our campaign operations."

Durkin did not name new House leadership today. He said he needs time to decide who will serve in those roles. Poe said he is not seeking a leadership job, which comes with a pay bump, but he would like to play a role on Durkin’s “advisory team.” Poe said his top goal is overcoming the Democrat’s veto-proof majority in the House and electing a Republican governor. 

“If that combination would happen, we are back at the table as Republicans. And right now they [Democrats] don’t even invite us to the table.” Both Poe and Durkin said they support Sen. Kirk Dillard in the Republican gubernatorial primary.

The competition between Durkin and Poe was framed by some as an upstate versus downstate battle. But after today’s vote, downstate lawmakers said that they were happy with the results. “Being a downstater myself, I think there will be great representation for downstate and issues important to downstate under leader-elect Durkin’s tenure,” said Rep. Dan Brady, a Republican from Bloomington. He said he thought a shake-up could do that caucus good. “He can energize our base more. He can reach out to those that have been supporters in the past that maybe are lukewarm. He can help to calm some of the concerns over the social issues that we all find ourselves in from time to time,” Brady said. “Most importantly, he can take the House Republican organization and move it forward, start building on increasing funds and different things that we need. And he can do that in a variety of ways by bringing in some new people and new ideas.”

Cross, who is from Oswego, retains the minority leader title. He and Durkin are going to meet over the coming weeks in order to make a smooth transition. Then Durkin will take over the job later next month. Brady said the swap is planned for September 20, but Durkin said it could come sooner. “It will be relatively soon. We’re all working together which is very, very nice,” said Cross. He has said he plans to serve out the rest of his House term. “We’re going to have a transition. It’s going to be orderly. It’s all going to be good. ... I think you’re going to see a good united front when we leave here today.”

House minority leader considering run for treasurer

By Jamey Dunn

House Minority Leader Tom Cross is mulling a run for state treasurer.

Cross was considering running for attorney general but scrapped that idea after Attorney General Lisa Madigan decided to seek reelection. Madigan had said she was considering a run for governor but later announced she would not seek the office as long as her father, House Speaker Michael Madigan, retained his leadership position in the legislature.

Cross reportedly held a conference call this morning to discuss his plans with members of his caucus. Cross told his members that he plans to serve out his term in office, but he would give up his leadership position this fall. He has been minority leader since 2002.

“As I consider the challenge of serving Illinois at a higher level, I did ask my colleagues in the House Republican caucus to begin the process of a succession plan so that a new leader may be chosen in preparation for the 2014 elections,” Cross said in a prepared statement. He said he will officially announce his plans in the next two weeks.

 Champaign Sen. Mike Frerichs, whose candidacy for treasurer was recently endorsed by the Cook County Democratic Party, did not waste time striking out at Cross.

“State House Republican Leader Cross has been a Springfield insider for over two decades, during which he contributed to many of the most hazardous fiscal decisions leading to our current financial crisis,” said a statement from Frerichs’ campaign. “Leader Cross has championed a Republican caucus which has lost touch with the middle class and has sought to cut to the core the very programs that working families across Illinois depend on, like public schools and programs to protect Illinois’ seniors. I look forward to a vigorous and exciting debate about how best to protect the retirement security and college savings of working- and middle-class families.”

DuPage County Auditor Bob Grogan and DuPage County Board Chairman Bob Schillerstrom, both Republicans, are also exploring bids for treasurer. Chicago businessman Michael Scott Carter, a Republican, is also running.  A request for comment from Grogan was not returned, a campaign staffer for Schillerstrom declined to comment and Carter could not be reached for comment.

Republican candidates highlight what they hope are winning qualities

By Jamey Dunn

Republican candidates for governor touted their electability at political events centered on the state fair today.

Four candidates are taking a shot at winning the Republican nomination this year. Three are familiar faces, and one is a newcomer. Businessman Bruce Rauner rode his Harley motorcycle into Springfield for today’s party breakfast and Republican Day at the fair. Talking to reporters on his way into breakfast, the first-time political candidate refused to get specific on a number of issues, including same-sex marriage and whether motorcyclists should be legally required to wear helmets. Rauner would only say that he always wears one. There is no law in Illinois that requires helmets, but there have been several attempts to pass one in recent years. Each time, the efforts have been defeated by the influential motorcycle lobbying group ABATE. “Today, it’s about victory and unifying the party,” Rauner said when asked to comment about his stances on social issues.

He was only willing to get specific on one issue. “We’re going to get term limits put on everybody in Springfield. All the legislature, as well as the governor, both today and in the future.” Rauner said that lawmakers and the governor should be restricted to serving eight years in office. Rauner would not say if he would support making Illinois a right-to-work state. But he did say he looks to former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels as a political role model. Daniels, whose name was in circulation as a possible presidential challenger to Barack Obama in 2012, signed legislation in 2012 making Indiana a right to work state.

While Rauner may look up to Daniels, the priorities he listed today did not sound too different from those in speeches given by Democrats on their political day yesterday. He said he wants to help grow jobs, employ veterans, address corruption by bringing efficiency and transparency to state government and improve education. Rauner highlighted the fact that he is somewhat of a political outsider who would bring business experience to the job. “I have never run for office in my life, but I love our state passionately, and I cannot stand to watch us go down the drain the way we are. I will not sit by and let it happen,” he said. “I’m going to bring business talent, business success, to the governorship in Illinois.”

Rauner said of himself, “I’ve been a leader at everything I’ve touched throughout my career.”

Treasurer Dan Rutherford pointed to his win for his current office as proof that he can defeat a Democratic opponent in the general election. “I’m the only candidate running for governor that has actually run a statewide race. I know how to win.” Rutherford has attributed much of that that victory to outreach efforts in minority communities. “I know how to win. I know that going into communities of diversity is imperative for us as Republicans to earn the right to governor — communities of diversity of ethnicity and religion. I’ve done it. A great part of success is just showing up.” He said he could appeal to the independents and even bring over some Democrats. Rutherford said he would be able to garner solid support in Cook County.

He took a veiled swipe at Rauner’s lack of political experience in his speech to party leaders this morning. “It is good to be back at the state fair. This is not my first time here.” Rutherford highlighted his own hands-on style of politicking. “I’ve been to every single [one of the]102 counties,” Rutherford said.

Bloomington state Sen. Bill Brady, who lost the 2010 race to Quinn, said that his failed bid for governor has helped him to gain name recognition across the state. He said that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, brother of former president George W. Bush, encouraged him to run again. Brady said Bush told him that his own failed bid for governor of Florida helped him to eventually win the office.

Some political observers say that Brady’s conservative stances on social issues helped sink his campaign in 2010 because he was unable to gain the support of upstate moderates. But Brady said today that candidates have to make their opinions clear, come what may. “People have to know what you stand for. They know what I stand for. I stand for less government, lower taxes more private sector business. Regardless of who your candidate is, if they don’t know what you stand for, they don’t know what their supporting or not supporting.” However, Brady said that he thinks the focus of the 2014 race should be economic issues and not social policy.

Brady and the other candidates will likely not be able to match the wealthy Rauner’s ability to spend on his campaign. “We’ve conceded the fact that we’ll probably be outspent,” Brady said. “I don’t think there’s any question the people of Illinois regret their choice in the last election, and we’re going to win this time around.”

When asked what his biggest misstep in 2010 was, Brady did not have an answer. “I don’t know that I can point to that. What I can point to is that we’re going to run a strong campaign, build on what we’ve done and finish the job we started.”

Hinsdale state Sen. Kirk Dillard lost the primary to Brady in 2010 by fewer than 200 votes. Dillard noted that many pundits have since speculated that if he had beat Brady, he would be governor today. Dillard said to Republicans today that he could be the “unifier between the conservatives and moderates of our party.” Dillard said that he has appeal throughout Illinois and the “right profile” to win a statewide office. “I’m a suburbanite with strong downstate agricultural roots. I will be a governor for all of Illinois. I am not a regional candidate.”

Dillard pointed to his time as former Gov. Jim Edgar’s chief of staff as proof of his ability work with lawmakers and get things done. “I have experience that money cannot buy. ... I once worked for the last clean and competent governor of Illinois.” Edgar is again supporting Dillard’s bid for office. “I am the one candidate that is electable statewide. I know how to govern a Democrat legislature to get it to do things, and I’ve proven it as state senator as well as a gubernatorial aide — to get that Democrat legislature to live within its means,” Dillard said today. “I’m tested. I’m proven. And I’m committed to reinvigorating the Republican Party, but most importantly, making this great state of Illinois, the capital of the Midwest, work again.”

House Minority Leader Tom Cross was not in attendance today. The official line is that he had a prior family commitment and would be seeing his daughter off to college. However, rumors were circulating all day that he is considering a bid for treasurer. Cross had been planning a run for the attorney general’s office if Attorney General Lisa Madigan vacated the position. However, Madigan passed on a bid for governor and instead decided to seek reelection. While Cross was mulling his run, other members of his caucus were stepping forward in hopes of filling his leadership position. Since the revelation that Cross might stick around, he has been met with hostility from some of his members who were eyeing his job. Today, people close to the leader speculated that he may not have wanted to field questions from the press about a possible run for a different statewide office until he had made up his mind.

Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno was on hand. She said she would not be endorsing anyone in the elections. “I could imagine endorsing all of them; consequently, I will endorse none of them. ... I think all of them could do a good job, so I am going to be 100 percent behind whomever wins.” Radogno urged all Republicans who will be out campaigning during the 2014 election season to “remind our voters to keep focused on the result of 10 years of Democratic control.” She added, “People in this state I hope are smart enough to realize at this point, 10 years of one-party control has not been good for them.”

Madigan's announcement ripples the political pond

By Jamey Dunn

Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s decision to seek reelection instead of running for governor will have a ripple effect on the state’s political landscape.

Of course, Madigan decision not to run will affect the governor’s race. The popular attorney general has done well in the polls and was expected to be the front runner if she jumped into the governor’s race. Madigan announced yesterday that she would run again for her current office. In her written statement she cited her father Michael Madigan’s position as House speaker as one of the reasons for her decisions.

“For the last several months, I have considered the best way to continue serving the people of Illinois. Deciding whether to seek reelection or to run for governor has not been easy. I love my job as attorney general and continue to be excited about the important work we are doing and what we can do for people and families in the years ahead. I considered running for governor because of the need for effective management from that office and the frustration so many of us feel about the current lack of progress on critical issues facing Illinois,” Madigan said. “Ultimately, however, there has always been another consideration that impacts my decision. I feel strongly that the state would not be well-served by having a governor and speaker of the House from the same family and have never planned to run for governor if that would be the case. With Speaker Madigan planning to continue in office, I will not run for governor.”

Gov. Pat Quinn has said in the past that a Madigan in the governor’s office and a Madigan as speaker would be a conflict of interest. He did not reiterate that opinion today when asked about Lisa Madigan’s decision. Instead, he praised her service as attorney general, the job she has held since 2003. “I think it was well-said,” Quinn said in Chicago today of Madigan’s statement.

With Madigan out of the way, Quinn’s only challenger is former White House chief of staff Bill Daley. Daley served as chief of staff under President Barack Obama and commerce secretary under former President Bill Clinton. Despite his connections to national politics, most Illinois probably know him best from his family ties. He is the brother of former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, the longest serving Chicago mayor to date, and son of former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, the second-longest serving mayor.

Quinn's comments today indicate that he may try to present Daley, who has also worked as a lawyer and a banker, as a rich insider while paying up his own populist credentials. “I think I’m quite a bit different than Bill Daley. He has a better tailor than I do.” Quinn said of himself: “I’m a people person. I think that anybody who has ever worked with me in public life knows that I interact with everyday people. I’m not going to be a champion of millionaires — everybody knows that. I fight hard for folks who don’t have lobbyists, who don’t have political action committees, who aren’t in high places, but they’re the heart and soul of Illinois.”

But when it comes to campaign funds, so far Quinn is Mr. Moneybags. According to campaign filings due yesterday, he raised $1 million between April 1 and June 30 and has $2.3 million to spend. Daley has raised more than $796,000. “I think that they understand we’re doing a good job,” Quinn said of his donors. “I think we ran a campaign in 2010 in a pretty tough environment and I won the primary won the general election. That’s what’s going to happen next year, too.”

Meanwhile, Daley has painted Quinn as an ineffective leader. “General Madigan's decision not to run now gives voters a clear choice between a proven leader who gets things done and a governor who can't seem to get anything done,” Pete Giangreco, spokesman for the Daley campaign, said in a written statement in reaction to Madigan’s announcement Monday.

Both candidates were likely happy to learn that Madigan is opting out of the race. Both face their own unique challenges in the Democratic primary: Quinn his unpopularity and Daley his unfamiliarity among voters outside of the Chicago area. “Daley has to go out and make public opinion, and Quinn has to change it,” said Kent Redfield, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Illinois Springfield.

At face value, Madigan’s decision seems to most benefit Daley, who can now paint himself as the only alternative to a governor many in the state dislike. However, he is an as of yet unproven candidate. If Daley was to fall in his face, all Quinn would have to do is step over him to secure the Democratic nomination now that Madigan is out of the picture. “It may be a huge plus for Quinn if Daley crashes and burns,” Redfield said.

For the Republicans, Redfield says Madigan’s decision may give all the four candidates a slight morale boost. “This may add a little bit of energy on the Republican side in general for the governor’s race because everybody sees a clearer path to being governor,” he said. But he cautioned, “If the Republicans eat each other alive and beat each other to death, so that it’s the last man standing, it may not make that much difference.”

Some members of the legislature may now be planning to stay put. “Where we thought we were going to open up a bunch of musical chairs here, open up a bunch of seats, it really kind of freezes everybody,” Redfield said. House Minority Leader Tom Cross had said he was weighing a run for the attorney general’s office if it were open. Now that it is not, he may need to work to soothe a caucus after many members have been vying behind the scenes to replace him. But since no clear successor exists, it appears likely he will hang onto his leadership position. “I think Cross probably maintains his leadership role, but again, that’s dependent on nobody becoming a viable alterative that can really bring everybody together,” Redfield said.

Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul was also considering a bid for Madigan’s office if she left. Raoul has been at the center of the two premier legislative debates of the spring session, concealed carry of firearms and finding a solution to the public employee pension crisis. He is chair of the conference committee that is working to draft pension legislation that the group hopes can pass in both chambers. Raoul publicly sparred with Quinn in recent weeks over Quinn’s attempted rewrite of concealed-carry legislation and the governor’s move to suspend lawmakers' pay until pension changes are passed. While the two agree on many policy points, Raoul has taken issue with Quinn’s leadership style. The populist moves that Quinn is playing up for the governor’s race are the decisions that are putting him at odds with lawmakers. Raoul called Quinn’s veto of lawmakers pay unconstitutional grandstanding. “Listen, I like the governor. I like the governor, but I just don’t like the communication I have experienced over the last few weeks,” he said after a recent conference committee hearing.

With Madigan out of the governor’s race, the Illinois political rumor mill is churning at full speed and spitting out names of potential Democratic candidates, Raoul among them. He says he weighing his options. But a gubernatorial bid from Raoul might risk his status as a rising star in the Senate for a long-shot bid at higher office. “He’s for sure going to be in the majority and for sure going to be an important player in the Senate,” Redfield said. He said that Madigan’s decision not to run could open the door for another Democrat to join the race, but he can’t think of an obvious candidate. “I’m hard-pressed to think who that would be. Is there an opportunity for someone who is not a white male from Chicago? Sure. But I don’t know who that is,” he said. “A state legislator is at a huge financial deficit in terms of being able to put together a campaign — not having name recognition, not having any kind of statewide network, not having any kind of statewide fundraising in place.”

 Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon was also reportedly mulling a run for the attorney general’s office. Several Chicago media outlets have reported today that she will instead announce a bid for state comptroller in the near future. She will be challenging incumbent Judy Baar Topinka, which could be an uphill climb, especially considering that Simon’s fundraising totals have been lackluster so far. “She needs to have a clear field [in the primary] and the support of the Democratic Party,” Redfield said about Simon. “Once you get into the general [election], then obviously the party is going to help you.”

Madigan’s bombshell announcement Monday will no doubt have a lasting impact on Illinois politics — for one thing it indicates her powerful father isn’t going anywhere — and the outcomes of the 2014 general election. But the results are nearly impossible to see as campaigns are just beginning to kick off. Perhaps Quinn said it best when asked today if he was taken aback by Madigan’s announcement. “I’m not surprised about anything in Illinois politics.”

Quinn gives committee three weeks for pension reform

By Jamey Dunn with Meredith Colias contributing 

Gov. Pat Quinn set a July 9 deadline for a newly formed legislative conference committee on pension reform to produce a compromise.

 “We have to have a reasonable deadline,” Quinn said. “They don’t have an eternity to do the job. ... This is urgent. This is an emergency. We’re in a crisis in Illinois.” Quinn said he made it clear to legislative leaders today that he expects the committee to present a plan for both chambers to vote on by the second Tuesday in July.

The House and Senate today set into motion the formation of the conference committee. Such committees are tasked with working out a compromise when both chambers cannot come to an agreement on legislation. The process has not been used in recent years. But as lawmakers headed into a special session called by Quinn with no agreement to vote on, the governor requested that a conference committee take up pension changes. Quinn described the committee as the “crowbar necessary to break the gridlock” over public employee pensions, but he didn’t give a direct answer on why he thinks this new conference committee would succeed where multiple working groups have failed. “The 10 members of this conference committee, good and true, have to work in good faith and bridge the differences that the House and Senate have on this particular issue,” he said. “I think it’s important now that they reconcile and bridge the differences. There are ways to do that. We began that conversation today.”

Legislative leaders named the members to the committee. For the most part, the appointees reflect the views of those who appointed them. House Speaker Michael Madigan named Chicago Rep. Arthur Turner, Riverside Rep. Michael Zalewski and Northbrook Democrat Elaine Nekritz, who has been a key player in pension talks thus far. “I think it has the potential to be different because we’re just in a different position than we’ve been in throughout this long journey, this arduous journey,” Nekritz said. “We’re a lot further down the road than we have been in the past, and I think that there is a ... desire to come together to get a compromise. I can say that from the House’s perspective, and I believe that to be true of the Senate, as well.” House Minority Leader Tom Cross tapped Naperville Rep. Darlene Senger and Quincy Rep. Jil Tracy.

Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno chose Palatine Sen. Matt Murphy and Bloomington Sen. Bill Brady. Senate President John Cullerton appointed Evanston Sen. Daniel Biss, Chicago Sen. Kwame Raoul and Aurora Sen. Linda Holmes. Biss, who sponsored Senate Bill 1, is the only choice that stands out as not sharing similar views on the issue as the leader who appointed him. However, Biss acknowledged today that compromise is needed, calling SB 1 “dead” and “gone.” “I think everything has to be on the table. I think we need to walk into this with the openness and flexibility that comes with not having bright red lines and not having nonstarters,” Biss said.

Members of the committee will be working to meet two demands. Madigan wants a bill that will save enough money to ensure that lawmakers will not have to make more pension cuts in the future. Cullerton wants some form of consideration — giving employees something in exchange for cuts to their benefits — which he says is necessary to make the legislation constitutional. Biss said he realizes that to meet both demands, the final bill would likely not save as much as SB 1. “I don’t come to this saying, 'Oh well, I was for Senate Bill 1, so the ultimate compromise has to save exactly $187 billion.' I don’t think that’s necessary, and I think it’s the wrong attitude to walk into the room with.”

Holmes, who was part of the talks that produced Cullerton’s SB 2404, said that coming to an agreement with the unions on the bill showed her that negotiations can be fruitful even if it seems like there is no grounds for compromise. “It was very difficult to think you could ever come up with anything you agreed on, and yet we all walked out of that room with something we could all live with. So I’m going to stay optimistic that this conference committee will be able to do some of that.”

The union coalition that backs SB 2404 was less than thrilled with the leaders’ choices in conference committee members. “The conference committee appointed today is heavily stacked against protecting retirement security for working families and seniors. Even so, our coalition will continue to do everything possible to advance SB 2404, which is fair, bipartisan and constitutional while producing substantial savings for the state,” said a statement from the We Are One Coalition.

Cullerton again today cast doubt on the committee meeting an early July deadline. He said the group should get actuarial analyses to understand the potential savings of any plan it is considering. “Sometimes it takes a long time. ... So that’s going to be potentially a delay. Plus the fact that we have such different theories between the two bills that have passed each chamber.”

But Quinn said that if lawmakers, working with the committee, cannot “come up with a solid package by the 9th, they’re not doing the job.”

The date of the special session may be driven by another factor. Some expect that Quinn will soon veto House Bill 183, a bill allowing concealed carry of firearms that passed on the last day of the spring legislative session. “We have to probably have to come back on July 8th to deal with the conceal and carry issue. So we’re going to be here, and if we have a pension resolution by then, of course we would take it up.” A federal court gave Illinois until July 9 to put a concealed carry law in place.

Cullerton said he expects Quinn to use his veto pen to rewrite the bill, something Quinn has done to place gun control measures in another gun-related bill. “I think he’s going to [use an amendatory] veto [on] the bill, requiring us to come back into session to act on that veto before July 9th.” Cullerton said he did not know how the governor might change the bill. Quinn did not acknowledge the connection, only saying that he is still reviewing the concealed carry legislation.

Cross said he thinks that the committee can meet Quinn’s deadline. “Sure it can be [done]. I mean, everybody knows the issues. There’s nothing new. We’ve had blue ribbon panels. We’ve had task forces. We’ve had summits. We’ve had back room meetings. We’ve had out-in-the-open meetings. We’ve had committee hearings. There’s nothing new here, so it can be done in the next couple weeks if people want it to be done.”

Ultimately all that lawmakers did in this special session was create yet another group, albeit with a new name, of most of the same players who have been working on the issue to continue to talk over pension reform. Skeptics say it was a way to leave town from the one-day special session without admitting defeat.

“The initial reaction [in the legislature] when Quinn suggested it was kind of eye-roll, ‘are-you-kidding' sort of thing,” said Kent Redfield, an emeritus political science professor at the University of Illinois Springfield.  “But then, I think the reason it got done was that people looked at it and said, 'If we do this, then it looks like we’re doing something. And we can present it as we came to town and we did something.’ It’s very symbolic. I think that it is basically a way to buy time and to play to the external audiences, which are editorial boards, average citizens and the bond [rating] houses.” Illinois’ credit rating was downgraded twice in the first week of June after lawmakers failed to pass pension changes in the regular session.

Cross said today’s creation of the committee was probably in part motivated by a desire for Democratic leaders to save face. However, he said time will tell if it will be a productive endeavor. “If in the next two weeks there’s a conference committee report and there’s a vote, then maybe we moved the ball forward, but I think there’s the potential to go nowhere,” he said.

Cullerton said he sees the committee as a breakthrough in the gridlock that has kept him and Madigan at odds for weeks. “Now we have a conference committee that the speaker has agreed to do rather than just insist that we keep on voting on his bill, and that’s a very positive step.”

 Committee members themselves described a guarded feeling of hope. “So one can ask: 'How optimistic are we? Is this going to work? Is this not going to work?’ I don’t know,” said Biss. “It’s always appropriate to have some skepticism. But the way to get there eventually will be for the people who so far haven’t been able to work something out to sit down and try. And I think it’s great that we’re going to try again.”

House passes comprehensive pension changes

By Jamey Dunn with Meredith Colias contributing 

The Illinois House approved changes to the state’s pension systems today that supporters say will likely be the plan that makes it to the governor’s desk.

“Obviously, it does not meet every request. Obviously, it does not make everybody happy. But I think we’re all familiar with the severe fiscal problems of our state. The fiscal problems of the pension systems are a large large part of that broader problem,” said House Speaker Michael Madigan, sponsor of Senate Bill 1. “In my judgment, this is a critical action that must be taken now. It must be taken for future budget making. It must be taken for the fiscal well-being and reputation for the state of Illinois.”

The bill would cap pensionable salary at $109,000, increase retirement ages for employers younger than 36 and increase employee contributions by 2 percent of their salaries over two years. Compounded cost of living adjustments would be capped based on the amount of time worked. For each year on the job, the cap would increase by $1,000. For example, if an employee worked for 30 years but received less than $30,000 of annual pensions benefits, he or she would receive a compounded COLA until the pension benefit caught up with that cap. Then the COLA would be flat amount going forward. Madigan said that it was the House’s affirmative vote a few weeks ago on capping COLA benefits that indicated a comprehensive plan could make it through the chamber. “I think that told the tale, and then we put the bill together,” he said.

Senate Bill 1, which passed 62-51 with two representatives voting “present,” is expected to save almost $2 billion up front and aims to fully fund pension benefits by 2044. The proposal also contains a guarantee that the state makes its annual required payments. When the state pays off bonds that were used to cover previous pension payments, $1 billion of that money will go toward the unfunded liability annually. House Leader Tom Cross, who a co-sponsor of SB 1, warned that lawmakers must become more fiscally prudent if they hope to live up to the funding guarantee in the bill. “I think we all need to keep in mind ... we can put anything we want in the law, and we can talk about the guarantees. But if the General Assembly, either the House or the Senate, doesn’t have the capacity or the willingness or the understanding to not spend more than we have, then it really doesn’t matter what we put in the law.”

House members listening to pension floor debate.

Rep. Thomas Morrison, a Palatine Republican, argued that the proposal would not go far enough. He said public employees should get all their benefits earned to date but should then be moved into 401(k)-like plans. “Other states have gone down this road. ... There are huge, huge problems with defined benefits systems,” he said. “I think there are some good reforms in this bill. I wish it would go significantly farther. I think we owe it even to the members of these pension systems to go significantly farther because I still am not confident that passing this bill is going to fulfill a promise to those workers who are counting on (pensions).”

However, Rep. Elaine Nekritz, a key player in the push for pension changes, and others noted the significance of today’s vote. “Today, we are very much taking an historic step to getting Illinois back in fiscal order,” said Nekritz, a Northbrook Democrat. “It’s historic in two ways. It’s historic because of the dramatic nature of the legislation itself. These are steps none of us relish taking, but we know we should. It’s also historic because we as a body today are sending a very clear message. We are putting necessity ahead of political expediency and doing the right things instead of the easy thing.”

Union leaders have the opposite view of today’s vote. They believe that cutting the benefits of workers who never failed to make their required payments toward their pensions is unconstitutional and just plain wrong. “Senate Bill 1 is unfair to the active and retired teachers, nurses, police and other employees who paid out of every paycheck to fund their pensions, even as the state shorted its share. On top of that, it is blatantly unconstitutional and thus saves nothing. It simply exacerbates Illinois' fiscal problems. In contrast, our coalition had a productive meeting today with [Senate] President John Cullerton, and we hope to be able to continue the dialogue,” said a statement from the We Are One Coalition. Cullerton has said he believes that the House plan is unconstitutional. He is working with union officials to try and craft a plan.

Madigan today dismissed the talks as a stalling tactic from the unions. He pointed to the negotiations of the union’s contract, which took more than a year. “I think this is a continuation of what we experienced a year ago. Henry Bayer [executive director of the American Federation of State County, and Municipal Employees Council 31] and the We Are One Coalition—where day to day they simply want to delay, delay, delay because maybe the problem will go away. Precisely what they did on the collective bargaining. And they only came to the conclusion on the collective bargaining because they knew there would be action in the legislature.” Madigan called Bayer an “expert at delay.”

However, the unions and Cullerton say they are making an earnest effort. Cullerton said Wednesday that the coalition presented him with a “credible constitutional plan.” But Madigan said that even if that is the case, it is unlikely that members of his chamber would go for a different bill that, all other things being equal, Cullerton admits would save less money. “I don’t expect that they’ll be able to come to an agreement such that people will be prepared to back away from this bill. There’s two chambers here, and both chambers have to pass the same bill. The House has passed a bill, and so whatever the Senate does, I don’t think it would achieve the cost savings that the House bill does.”

Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said she expects Republicans to support SB 1 if it is called for a vote in the Senate. “I am pleased the House will be sending over a comprehensive pension reform bill. These are substantial reforms that take a huge step forward in stabilizing the state’s finances,” she said in a written statement. She urged Cullerton to move ahead with the legislation. “A significant number of Senate Republicans supported similar legislation earlier this session. I anticipate they will join with me again to try to pass this bill to the governor’s desk. I’m appreciative of the Senate president’s efforts on a different framework, but the momentum may be building on this bill. Illinois desperately needs pension reform—we can’t afford to wait any longer.”

Gov. Pat Quinn congratulated the House on its vote in a written statement. “Today the Illinois House of Representatives took the biggest step to date towards restoring fiscal stability to Illinois. With the passage of this comprehensive pension reform solution, Illinois is closer than ever to addressing a decades-long problem that is plaguing our economy, our bond rating and the future of our children.”

Before the vote, Quinn said he does not want to dismiss the talks going on in the Senate. “I want to make sure that everybody has their say in both houses of the legislature,” Quinn said this morning. “We have to do it. The sooner it’s done, the better. I do think it’s important that both houses of the legislature know that it’s imperative this month that we pass a bill through both houses that comes to me so I can sign it into law. I want to make that point very clear to all the members of the legislature. We cannot delay. We cannot postpone. Our moment in history to get new pension reform is right now.”

Cullerton to Madigan: Consider union plan

Senate President John Cullerton said today that his negotiations with union leaders have produced a pension proposal that lawmakers in both chambers should consider.

Giving no details of the plan, Cullerton released a statement announcing a deal this afternoon.

UPDATE: Cullerton said this afternoon that he has not yet reached a final agreement with union leaders. But he says they have presented him a “substantial proposal” that his caucus will consider along with House Speaker Michael Madigan's plan, if it passes Thursday.

“We're not finished talking to them. We might want to make some proposed changes to their proposal. We just got it today,” Cullerton told reporters. “What's significant is that they're supportive of a major bill that saves billions of dollars, which I would say they've never been before. So that's a major move. There's still some details to work out.” Cullerton said the union's plan is based on the concept that workers must be offered something in exchange for pension cuts. He has maintained that without such a trade, any bill that reduces retirement benefits would be unconstitutional. “Since it's not unilateral cuts, it doesn't save as much money, but it's billions of dollars,” he said of the union proposal. 

When asked if he would call Madigan's bill, Cullerton said he would consult his members. “We’re going to hopefully see what the caucus wants to do, whether they want to support that bill, or the bill that the unions are supportive [of] or a combination thereof.” He noted that the Senate has already rejected a bill similar to the one the House plans to vote on Thursday. “We’ll see if this has any differences that get more people to be supportive, but you know, it’s not like we haven’t voted on this already," Cullerton said. 

“Since the beginning of session, I have made it clear that enacting constitutional pension reform is my top priority. Illinois faces a crisis; we owe it to our children and grandchildren to take action,” Cullerton said in a written statement about the union proposal. “I have worked to build consensus for reform within my caucus and across the diverse factions on both sides of the aisle. In these pension discussions, I have expressed a preference for the framework that, in my view, has the best chance of holding up in court. I have also worked to include labor in these conversations. Today, I concluded a series of meetings with representatives of teachers, nurses, police officers and other public employees. This coalition of labor leaders offered a credible and constitutional plan for consideration.”

The House is expected to vote on a pension plan tomorrow. Cullerton believes that proposal is unconstitutional. Both Madigan and the bill’s other sponsor, House Minority Leader Tom Cross, were optimistic about the possibility of the bill passing in the House tomorrow.

However, Cullerton urged lawmakers in both chambers to consider the plan he says he has worked out with the unions. “Because inaction is not an option, I believe that it is appropriate to begin discussing this plan with the members of my caucus and with the speaker of the House. It’s important that we advance a credible solution to our pension problems.”

House leaders hopeful about pension vote

By Jamey Dunn

An Illinois House vote on changes to the state’s pension systems is planned for Thursday, and legislative leaders from both parties are optimistic that the newest iteration of pension reform can pass.

A House committee this morning approved an amendment to Senate Bill 1 presented by House Speaker Michael Madigan. “This amendment would offer a comprehensive reform of the Illinois pension systems. It would bring solvency and stability to the four systems,” Madigan told the committee. The measure contains several provisions pulled from other bills, including ideas that have already been approved by the House.

The new version of SB 1 would:

• Increase the retirement age for employees younger than 46. Employees from 40 to 45 would see a one-year increase, employees 35 to 39 would see a three-year increase and employees 34 and younger would see a five-year increase. 
• Require employees to contribute 2 percent more of their salaries. The increased contribution would be phased in over two years. 
• Cap pensionable salary at $109,000, the limit that is currently used for Tier Two employees. The cap would increase at the rate of one half of the Consumer Price Index that is set for urban consumers. 
• Base the amount of pension benefits that would be eligible for cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) on the amount of time employees worked. For each year of employment, $1,000 (or $800 for employees who receive Social Security benefits) of pension income would be eligible for a COLA. For example, if an employee worked for 30 years, then $30,000 of his or her retirement benefit would see an annual COLA. Before employees reached their cap, they would receive a compounding COLA. After they reached the cap, they would get a flat annual increase. 

The measure does not contain any shift of future pension costs to schools outside of Chicago, public universities and community colleges. Such a provision helped sink an effort to pass pension changes in the final days of the legislative session last spring.

Chicago pays most of the employer cost for its teachers’ pensions, and Chicago Democrats have argued that it is unfair that the state chips in for benefits for teachers outside of the city. Madigan said he plans to move some kind of cost shift separately from SB 1. “I plan to do that on a different bill,” he said. “We haven’t begun that process.” However, he said he wants to pass it this session. Republicans, who oppose the cost shift, argue that Chicago makes out better than the rest of the state when it comes to overall education funding.

SB 1 aims to fully fund pension benefits by 2044. However, Madigan said there has not been an actuarial analysis of this new plan. “The only thing we can do today is to work off of the numbers that were generated from the other bills. So there’s a certain amount of speculation.” He said that if the bill were approved and signed into law, legislators should not count on any savings until the Illinois Supreme Court weighs in. “I just think that it would be prudent not to spend the anticipated savings in the next budget.” Madigan said he is confident that at least four members of the court would find the bill constitutional. However, he said that he had not talked with any of the justices about the legislation and did not plan to in the future. “It’s just my judgment,” he said. “I’ve had no conversations with any member of the court.”

The changes in SB 1 would apply to teachers outside of Chicago, state employees, legislators and university and community college employees. The state’s judges are not included in the plan. “That’s a practical judgment,” Madigan said about leaving out the judges. When pressed on the issue, he said he had “no further comment.”

Union leaders panned the bill, calling it blatantly unconstitutional and unfair to workers who made their required contributions while the state skipped payments. “The problem with this amendment is there is no shared sacrifice. While we ... have been willing to work collaboratively toward a fair and constitutional solution, this amendment represents a diminishment of benefits clearly prohibited by the Illinois Constitution,” said Michael Carrigan, president of the Illinois AFL-CIO. “Fixing a funding issue on the backs of public-sector workers, hard-working Illinois workers, by slashing their retirement benefits is not good public policy and will result in a legal challenge [that is] certain to be successful.”

Cinda Klickna, president of the Illinois Education Association, said the benefit cuts in the bill would make it difficult for some retirees on fixed incomes to make ends meet. She said that cuts to their incomes, which would likely result in them spending less, could hurt local economies. “Every public employee will be hurt. Every community will feel the impact, and it is about people,” Klickna said. “We can talk about numbers, we can talk about the state budget. We can talk about what something saves, but I think it’s a sad state of affairs when the state ignores its people.” Klickna added that increasing the retirement age means teachers would stay in their positions longer, making it more difficult for aspiring young teachers to find jobs.

But the unions’ complaints did little to dampen the optimism of those who see this bill as the culmination of work on the issue in the House. “My guess is this thing will pass out of the House. The question is what’s going to happen in the Senate,” said House Minority Leader Tom Cross, who has signed on as a cosponsor of the bill with Madigan. He said about the two partnering on the bill, “I think it puts a lot of pressure on the Senate and creates some momentum, where you’ve got a bipartisan effort coming out of the House.” Senate President John Cullerton said yesterday that he is still trying to work with union leaders to reach a compromise. Cullerton has said that he believes proposals such as the new SB 1 that unilaterally reduce benefits are unconstitutional.

Gov. Pat Quinn urged lawmakers to approve the legislation. “Illinois' economy will not fully recover until the General Assembly passes this comprehensive pension reform and sends the bill to my desk. Now is the time to take this major step to restore fiscal stability to Illinois,” he said in a written statement.

Cross said lawmakers should pass legislation that would reduce pension costs and stabilize the system instead of trying to predict what the courts will do with the final product. “No one knows. And we can all opine and give our theories on it. There are a number of folks in the legal community who have said this is constitutional,” Cross said. “But at the end of the day, whatever we pass is going to end up in the courts, and we will need to wait for the courts to give us their opinion. And we can all speculate, but until that happens, nobody’s going to know.”