By Meredith Colias
After years of just saying no, the legislature has sent a restrictive medical marijuana bill to the governor’s desk.
The measure passed the Senate on a 35-21 vote as the legislature approaches the final weeks of its spring session session. The House approved it earlier. Gov. Pat Quinn has said previously he is “open-minded” to the legislation but has not firmly confirmed whether he would sign it into law. If he does, the law would go into effect starting in 2014.
Supporters are touting this measure as one of the strictest in the nation, hoping to avoid the fallout in other states such as Colorado and California that have looser medical marijuana guidelines.
The Illinois bill is a four-year pilot program designed as a compassionate measure to allow those with 33 chronic or deeply debilitating illnesses specifically outlined, including multiple sclerosis, HIV/AIDS and cancer, to obtain marijuana to relieve their pain. They would be authorized for one year at a time.
“Many of these people are dying,” the bill’s sponsor, Alton Democrat Sen. William Haine said, and are forced to take medication with severe or adverse side effects. “They shouldn’t be relegated to this.”
Patients and their caregivers would have to pass background checks by the state police and would have their eligibility to buy and possess marijuana permanently revoked if they violate the bill’s guidelines. The state will require each patient to have a satisfactory “bona fide” relationship with the physician prescribing their medical marijuana as a way to sort out healthier or younger individuals hoping to obtain the drug for recreational use.
Patients approved by their doctors can buy 2.5 ounces of marijuana every two weeks. The state will keep electronic records to ensure they cannot exceed their allowed quota. Marijuana smoking in public would not allowed, and any marijuana transported by patients from state-approved dispensaries has to be kept in a sealed container.
Haine said the costs for maintaining the program would be paid by fees established by the Department of Public Health, Department of Agriculture and state police for authorizing possession cards, regulating growing centers and distributors and conducting background checks.
“The users that are in this system have to pay [for] it,” Haine said.
Opponents have expressed concerns that the bill will lead to unintended consequences, such as encouraging more recreational use and drug addiction among teenagers and others.
“For every touching story,” Lebanon Republican Kyle McCarter said, “there are a thousand times more parents that will never be relived from the pain” of losing a child to addiction." The bill would equate marijuana to “all these basic drugs that we trust are safe,” McCarter said.
Chicago Democrat Sen. Mattie Hunter, who has worked as a drug treatment counselor, said she could not support a bill that could encourage more addiction. “All they did was put ‘medical’ in front of marijuana. It’s still a drug,” she said. “I am not going to have this matter on my hands.”
As a former state’s attorney, Haine is judged to bring some credibility to the issue, but opponents cited the lack of support from law enforcement organizations.
They also expressed concerns that those approved to use it could be allowed to drive under the influence.
That is “absolutely not the case,” Haine said. If they cannot pass a sobriety test by police, they are subject to the law, and “their card is revoked.”
The Senate last passed another medical marijuana bill in 2009, but it failed in the House.
Aurora Democrat Sen. Linda Holmes, who has MS, said she understands the importance of providing a better quality of life. “We don’t want them to suffer,” she said.
For its sponsor, the bill is “a way to achieve … compassionate relief consistent with the law,” Haine said, while creating “a system that avoids abuse.”
Friday, May 17, 2013
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Senate vote on concealed carry expected soon
By Jamey Dunn
The Illinois Senate may vote as early as tomorrow on a bill to regulate the concealed carry of firearms in the state.
A Senate committee approved a concealed carry measure today that would give Chicago police control over who can carry in the city and allow home rule governments to ban guns from some areas.
To qualify for a concealed carry license under House Bill 183, Illinois residents would have to have a valid Firearm Owners Identification card, be 21 years old and complete eight hours of training. Licenses would cost $50 and last for five years. From that fee, $20 would be designated to fix the state's flawed system of reporting mental health records. A recent audit found that county officials were often not submitting such records to the state. The Illinois State Police, which currently issues FOID cards, would issue carry licenses. The state police would be required to notify local law enforcement if a resident of their jurisdiction applies for a license. The local police could object to applications, but the ultimate decision would be made by the state police. The Illinois State Police are in favor of the measure. “Everything that you find in this bill are things that the Illinois State Police can do,” said Illinois State Police Lt. Darrin Clark.
Applicants who plan to carry weapons in Chicago would have to receive approval from the superintendent of Chicago police. Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who sponsors the bill, said it recognizes that Chicago is different from any other part of the state. “There’s a density issue that creates a lot more contact between individuals. ... There’s a lot more population, and there’s a lot more opportunity for conflict,” he said. “Our feeling was that the chief law enforcement officer within the city of Chicago, who is most familiar with some of the violence challenges and the law enforcement challenges, is better positioned to determine who is appropriate to carry within the city of Chicago.”
The NRA came out strongly against the plan. “In our eyes, this is not a carry bill. This is a bill to discourage people and prevent people from carrying a firearm and exercising a constitutional, fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self defense in the public,” said NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde. “You can put lipstick on a pig, and it’s still a pig. And that’s what this is.” HB 997, which was backed by the NRA, fell short on a House vote last month.
Raoul's bill would ban guns from many areas, such as government buildings, bars and hospitals. University officials would decide whether guns could be carried on campuses. The proposal would also allow home rule units of government to add locations to the list of places where guns are not allowed by passing ordinances within six months after the measure goes into effect. Private businesses would also be able ban guns from their premises and parking lots. Raoul said that he was trying to strike a balance between the rights of gun owners to carry and the rights of property owners who may not want guns on their land.
Vandermyde said the bill would create a patchwork of regulations that would be confusing to gun owners and make it difficult to follow the law. “It doesn’t seem like it’s going to work if you allow 200-plus home rule units to set arbitrary restrictions,” he said.
Raoul’s plan would also require gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms within 72 hours of discovering the theft or loss. Gun owners conducting private sales would also have to verify that purchasers’ FOID cards are valid. Vandermyde said that the NRA opposes adding gun control measures to a carry measure. “The carry bill is the carry bill. There’s a court case that deals with this. We ought to deal with that. Separate all the other things and keep it down to a simple concept.”
Senate President John Cullerton supports Raoul's plan. “I want to commend Sen. Raoul for negotiating another tough issue on behalf of our caucus. The framework of this proposal acknowledges the diversity of our state, embraces local control and provides for sensible safeguards,” he said in a prepared statement. No Republicans voted in favor of the measure in committee.
House Minority Leader Christine Radogno voted “present,” saying she had issues with the plan. “My concerns about this bill I think are fixable, but they are definitely major,” she said.
Cullerton said after the hearing that the bill could come up for a floor vote tomorrow. When asked if it has the support to pass, he said: “We don’t know. It’s going to be close.”
The Illinois Senate may vote as early as tomorrow on a bill to regulate the concealed carry of firearms in the state.
A Senate committee approved a concealed carry measure today that would give Chicago police control over who can carry in the city and allow home rule governments to ban guns from some areas.
To qualify for a concealed carry license under House Bill 183, Illinois residents would have to have a valid Firearm Owners Identification card, be 21 years old and complete eight hours of training. Licenses would cost $50 and last for five years. From that fee, $20 would be designated to fix the state's flawed system of reporting mental health records. A recent audit found that county officials were often not submitting such records to the state. The Illinois State Police, which currently issues FOID cards, would issue carry licenses. The state police would be required to notify local law enforcement if a resident of their jurisdiction applies for a license. The local police could object to applications, but the ultimate decision would be made by the state police. The Illinois State Police are in favor of the measure. “Everything that you find in this bill are things that the Illinois State Police can do,” said Illinois State Police Lt. Darrin Clark.
Applicants who plan to carry weapons in Chicago would have to receive approval from the superintendent of Chicago police. Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who sponsors the bill, said it recognizes that Chicago is different from any other part of the state. “There’s a density issue that creates a lot more contact between individuals. ... There’s a lot more population, and there’s a lot more opportunity for conflict,” he said. “Our feeling was that the chief law enforcement officer within the city of Chicago, who is most familiar with some of the violence challenges and the law enforcement challenges, is better positioned to determine who is appropriate to carry within the city of Chicago.”
The NRA came out strongly against the plan. “In our eyes, this is not a carry bill. This is a bill to discourage people and prevent people from carrying a firearm and exercising a constitutional, fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self defense in the public,” said NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde. “You can put lipstick on a pig, and it’s still a pig. And that’s what this is.” HB 997, which was backed by the NRA, fell short on a House vote last month.
Raoul's bill would ban guns from many areas, such as government buildings, bars and hospitals. University officials would decide whether guns could be carried on campuses. The proposal would also allow home rule units of government to add locations to the list of places where guns are not allowed by passing ordinances within six months after the measure goes into effect. Private businesses would also be able ban guns from their premises and parking lots. Raoul said that he was trying to strike a balance between the rights of gun owners to carry and the rights of property owners who may not want guns on their land.
Vandermyde said the bill would create a patchwork of regulations that would be confusing to gun owners and make it difficult to follow the law. “It doesn’t seem like it’s going to work if you allow 200-plus home rule units to set arbitrary restrictions,” he said.
Raoul’s plan would also require gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms within 72 hours of discovering the theft or loss. Gun owners conducting private sales would also have to verify that purchasers’ FOID cards are valid. Vandermyde said that the NRA opposes adding gun control measures to a carry measure. “The carry bill is the carry bill. There’s a court case that deals with this. We ought to deal with that. Separate all the other things and keep it down to a simple concept.”
Senate President John Cullerton supports Raoul's plan. “I want to commend Sen. Raoul for negotiating another tough issue on behalf of our caucus. The framework of this proposal acknowledges the diversity of our state, embraces local control and provides for sensible safeguards,” he said in a prepared statement. No Republicans voted in favor of the measure in committee.
House Minority Leader Christine Radogno voted “present,” saying she had issues with the plan. “My concerns about this bill I think are fixable, but they are definitely major,” she said.
Cullerton said after the hearing that the bill could come up for a floor vote tomorrow. When asked if it has the support to pass, he said: “We don’t know. It’s going to be close.”
Higher education leaders agree to pension cost shift
By Meredith Colias
Representatives from universities and community colleges negotiating with House Speaker Michael Madigan have reluctantly agreed to begin gradually taking over the payments for their employee pension costs.
The plan is for the higher education institutions to start to pay .5 percent of employee pension costs in Fiscal Year 2015, which begins July 1, 2014, and gradually increase that amount by an additional .5 percent increment each year until they fully take over the state’s payment, estimated at between 10 to 11 percent under the new plan.
Madigan is pushing the proposal, saying the state is no longer in a financial position to foot the bill for them. “Whenever one person spends money and another person pays the bill, it’s a bad policy, especially for government,” Madigan said. “They would prefer not to do this, but they all acknowledged in their public testimony that they think proposal is fair,” Madigan said. “They think they can manage it.” The proposed cost shift has been a point of controversy throughout the debate over changes to the pension systems. Republicans have argued that it would lead to layoffs, tuition increases and local property tax increases if it were applied to K-12 schools. Democratic leaders decided to remove the issue from the larger debate and deal with it on its own.
Glenn Poshard, president of Southern Illinois University, said the proposal would require sacrifice on the part of the university, but he said it was more important to show employees that there would still be a reliable source for their pension payment. “We’ll just have to do it, because they deserve stability and security in their pensions system.” Poshard said. “We are willing to go forward,” he said. “We know it is not going to be easy.”
Representatives from community colleges expressed more concerns. “We [will] manage, but it will be difficult. We will do the best we can,” said Tom Ryder, who represents the Illinois Community College Trustees Association. A “free lunch is a good thing if you’re consuming, but not if you’re paying,” he said. “We want to manage our way through it.” Ryder said changes made during negotiations with Madigan, including delaying the start of the shift until 2015 and settling on the .5 percent initial shift, “helps us feel comfortable” with the proposal.
University officials and community colleges called on lawmakers during the committee to fix the Tier II pension system. University employees cannot contribute to Social Security, and some have expressed concern that Tier II pension benefits may not be sufficient enough for them to continue to be exempt from the Social Security system. The worry is that sometime in the future, universities could be forced to pay into Social Security in addition to their pension costs. Some key players in the pension debate have proposed a Tier II fix that would give employees a 401(k)-type plan in addition to their defined benefit plans, but it was not included in either the pension proposal that passed in the House or a different one that passed in the Senate.
Poshard said that looking at the long-term consequences, he is concerned that less state funding and more obligations to pay from the state will force universities to raise tuition costs and price students out of a college education. “There is a plethora of things the state is not funding [anymore],” he said. “I think that’s the road we have been going down,” he said. “If we keep going in this direction, we are just going to privatize public higher education. That’s the meal ticket for the middle class,” he said. “We’re still hopeful that we won’t” end up with Quinn’s proposed 5 percent cuts to higher education, Poshard said after the committee meeting. “If we end up with one or two [percent in cuts from last year's funding instead] we would be happy.” Supporters of the cost shift hope to work out a plan for K-12 schools to also pick up future employee retirement costs. Madigan said today that the House would likely have another hearing on that issue next week.
Representatives from universities and community colleges negotiating with House Speaker Michael Madigan have reluctantly agreed to begin gradually taking over the payments for their employee pension costs.
The plan is for the higher education institutions to start to pay .5 percent of employee pension costs in Fiscal Year 2015, which begins July 1, 2014, and gradually increase that amount by an additional .5 percent increment each year until they fully take over the state’s payment, estimated at between 10 to 11 percent under the new plan.
Madigan is pushing the proposal, saying the state is no longer in a financial position to foot the bill for them. “Whenever one person spends money and another person pays the bill, it’s a bad policy, especially for government,” Madigan said. “They would prefer not to do this, but they all acknowledged in their public testimony that they think proposal is fair,” Madigan said. “They think they can manage it.” The proposed cost shift has been a point of controversy throughout the debate over changes to the pension systems. Republicans have argued that it would lead to layoffs, tuition increases and local property tax increases if it were applied to K-12 schools. Democratic leaders decided to remove the issue from the larger debate and deal with it on its own.
Glenn Poshard, president of Southern Illinois University, said the proposal would require sacrifice on the part of the university, but he said it was more important to show employees that there would still be a reliable source for their pension payment. “We’ll just have to do it, because they deserve stability and security in their pensions system.” Poshard said. “We are willing to go forward,” he said. “We know it is not going to be easy.”
Representatives from community colleges expressed more concerns. “We [will] manage, but it will be difficult. We will do the best we can,” said Tom Ryder, who represents the Illinois Community College Trustees Association. A “free lunch is a good thing if you’re consuming, but not if you’re paying,” he said. “We want to manage our way through it.” Ryder said changes made during negotiations with Madigan, including delaying the start of the shift until 2015 and settling on the .5 percent initial shift, “helps us feel comfortable” with the proposal.
University officials and community colleges called on lawmakers during the committee to fix the Tier II pension system. University employees cannot contribute to Social Security, and some have expressed concern that Tier II pension benefits may not be sufficient enough for them to continue to be exempt from the Social Security system. The worry is that sometime in the future, universities could be forced to pay into Social Security in addition to their pension costs. Some key players in the pension debate have proposed a Tier II fix that would give employees a 401(k)-type plan in addition to their defined benefit plans, but it was not included in either the pension proposal that passed in the House or a different one that passed in the Senate.
Poshard said that looking at the long-term consequences, he is concerned that less state funding and more obligations to pay from the state will force universities to raise tuition costs and price students out of a college education. “There is a plethora of things the state is not funding [anymore],” he said. “I think that’s the road we have been going down,” he said. “If we keep going in this direction, we are just going to privatize public higher education. That’s the meal ticket for the middle class,” he said. “We’re still hopeful that we won’t” end up with Quinn’s proposed 5 percent cuts to higher education, Poshard said after the committee meeting. “If we end up with one or two [percent in cuts from last year's funding instead] we would be happy.” Supporters of the cost shift hope to work out a plan for K-12 schools to also pick up future employee retirement costs. Madigan said today that the House would likely have another hearing on that issue next week.
House plans human services cuts
By Jamey Dunn
The Illinois House is planning to fund human services in its budget at a lower level than Gov. Pat Quinn proposed in his budget.
“We’re looking at cutting $770 million form the governor’s introduced budget, which are horrendous cuts,” Rep. Greg Harris said this morning before heading into a working group meeting, which is not open to the public, to negotiate the human services portion of the House budget with other members of the House human services budget committee. Quinn called for an increase of about $340 million for the Department of Human Services for next year when compared with the current budget.
Harris said that he hopes pass a bill that would spend more on human services this fiscal year as an effort to soften the blow of next fiscal year’s cuts. Income tax revenues for the current year will exceed previous estimates by $1.3 billion. However, some of that money has been used to pay down a chunk of the state’s overdue bills to schools, vendors, social services providers, local governments and others. “The economy has begun the rebound; not a lot but a little. So we have had money come in that was above our target for FY 13,” Harris said. He said spending some of that money on human services this fiscal year, which ends on June 30, “would certainly make our job less horrible and the cuts less painful on people. I hope that everyone will go along with doing that so that we can minimize the cuts, but we still have to continue to look for ways to live within our means and not overspend our budget every year.”
Harris said he did not know when the human services portion of the House budget would be complete. He said members of both parties serving on the committee, which he chairs, are trying to reach agreements. “We’re all trying to work together, and we want to work in a collegial way.” Whatever the House passes would also have to be approved by the Senate and signed by Quinn.
The Illinois House is planning to fund human services in its budget at a lower level than Gov. Pat Quinn proposed in his budget.
“We’re looking at cutting $770 million form the governor’s introduced budget, which are horrendous cuts,” Rep. Greg Harris said this morning before heading into a working group meeting, which is not open to the public, to negotiate the human services portion of the House budget with other members of the House human services budget committee. Quinn called for an increase of about $340 million for the Department of Human Services for next year when compared with the current budget.
Harris said that he hopes pass a bill that would spend more on human services this fiscal year as an effort to soften the blow of next fiscal year’s cuts. Income tax revenues for the current year will exceed previous estimates by $1.3 billion. However, some of that money has been used to pay down a chunk of the state’s overdue bills to schools, vendors, social services providers, local governments and others. “The economy has begun the rebound; not a lot but a little. So we have had money come in that was above our target for FY 13,” Harris said. He said spending some of that money on human services this fiscal year, which ends on June 30, “would certainly make our job less horrible and the cuts less painful on people. I hope that everyone will go along with doing that so that we can minimize the cuts, but we still have to continue to look for ways to live within our means and not overspend our budget every year.”
Harris said he did not know when the human services portion of the House budget would be complete. He said members of both parties serving on the committee, which he chairs, are trying to reach agreements. “We’re all trying to work together, and we want to work in a collegial way.” Whatever the House passes would also have to be approved by the Senate and signed by Quinn.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Budget plans could start to move next week
By Jamey Dunn
with Meredith Colias contributing
Budget bills from both legislative chambers could emerge as early as next week.
“The clock started ticking today. We have two weeks left, for all practical purposes, to get it done,” said Chicago Democratic Sen. Donne Trotter, who is a key player in the budgeting process in his chamber. The spring session is scheduled to adjourn on March 31. “We can’t miss a beat as we go forward,” he said, adding that legislators working on the budget in the Senate hope to get a bill or bills passed through committee next week. “Nobody knows what form it’s going to be in as of yet.”
While he said he doesn’t know the specifics yet, Trotter said he knows many in the Senate would like to keep education cuts as shallow as possible. “I don’t think there’s anyone in this chamber, or even across the [Capitol] rotunda, who feel that cutting $400 million out of the education budget is the way we should be doing business in this state. If we want a viable state, we certainly have to have an educated community to get those jobs and to want to stay in the state of Illinois. So cutting dollars out of K-12 and in higher education — another 5 percent out of higher education — is not the way to achieve that goal. So many of us are looking at how to put dollars back in there.”
Lewistown Democratic Rep. William Davis, who is the chair of the House education budget committee, said the committee has about $6.5 billion to work with, the same amount that it received last year. In recent years, House leaders have given committees lump sums and then asked them to determine how the money will be spent in their areas of state government. Because of cuts, general state aid to schools has been prorated over the last two years, leaving schools with smaller payments near the end of the fiscal year. In Fiscal Year 2013, general aid was prorated at 89 percent. Davis said that if the same amount of money were allocated this year, the proration would be set at 86 percent. That means the state would fall 14 percent short of meeting the foundation funding level, which is $6,119 per student. “I would say that my priority as chair is to try to keep general state aid level,” Davis said. But he added, “It’s going to be very difficult to not have to make some cuts somewhere.” Davis said he and other budget committee chairs hope to pass bills out of their committees next week. However, he said, that they may be shell bills with no specific language in them.
Trotter said those working on the budget in the Senate are not doling out set amounts to different areas of the state budget but instead are trying to find savings where they can and weigh different areas of spending against one anther. “It’s called prioritizing, and that’s how you have to do a budget.” He said that he and others realize that it will likely be impossible to avoid any cuts to education. “We’re broke. I mean, you can’t get past that. And certainly there has to be some reductions. It’s called just being smarter with our money that we have.” He said they are focusing on some personnel cost increases in Quinn’s proposed budget but do not plan to skip out on appropriating money for raises negotiated in the state’s new contract with union workers. “The raises — if they’re, of course, by union contract — we have to do the raises.” Trotter said he hopes that both chambers can take a broad look at the budget and try to problem-solve. He said Senate President John Cullerton, House Speaker Michael Madigan and Gov. Pat Quinn have been meeting to discuss the budget. A spokesperson for Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said Radogno had not been invited to any budget meetings with the governor.
“The House is known to look at things in silos. Hopefully as these next couple weeks advance, we can maybe bust into those silos and look at some other things,” Trotter said. “As we know, the budget is a whole, not just all these little parts to it.” He echoed the complaints heard from Senate Democrats in recent years that budget cuts are hurting those who most need help from the state. “Many of us feel the most vulnerable ones are being attacked. Last year it was health care; this year it is education,” Trotter said. “Why do you go to these programs? It’s like the old joke: because that’s where the money is. But at the same time, that is where [the most vulnerable people] are, too. We need to find a balance, and I think we can.”
Budget bills from both legislative chambers could emerge as early as next week.
“The clock started ticking today. We have two weeks left, for all practical purposes, to get it done,” said Chicago Democratic Sen. Donne Trotter, who is a key player in the budgeting process in his chamber. The spring session is scheduled to adjourn on March 31. “We can’t miss a beat as we go forward,” he said, adding that legislators working on the budget in the Senate hope to get a bill or bills passed through committee next week. “Nobody knows what form it’s going to be in as of yet.”
While he said he doesn’t know the specifics yet, Trotter said he knows many in the Senate would like to keep education cuts as shallow as possible. “I don’t think there’s anyone in this chamber, or even across the [Capitol] rotunda, who feel that cutting $400 million out of the education budget is the way we should be doing business in this state. If we want a viable state, we certainly have to have an educated community to get those jobs and to want to stay in the state of Illinois. So cutting dollars out of K-12 and in higher education — another 5 percent out of higher education — is not the way to achieve that goal. So many of us are looking at how to put dollars back in there.”
Lewistown Democratic Rep. William Davis, who is the chair of the House education budget committee, said the committee has about $6.5 billion to work with, the same amount that it received last year. In recent years, House leaders have given committees lump sums and then asked them to determine how the money will be spent in their areas of state government. Because of cuts, general state aid to schools has been prorated over the last two years, leaving schools with smaller payments near the end of the fiscal year. In Fiscal Year 2013, general aid was prorated at 89 percent. Davis said that if the same amount of money were allocated this year, the proration would be set at 86 percent. That means the state would fall 14 percent short of meeting the foundation funding level, which is $6,119 per student. “I would say that my priority as chair is to try to keep general state aid level,” Davis said. But he added, “It’s going to be very difficult to not have to make some cuts somewhere.” Davis said he and other budget committee chairs hope to pass bills out of their committees next week. However, he said, that they may be shell bills with no specific language in them.
Trotter said those working on the budget in the Senate are not doling out set amounts to different areas of the state budget but instead are trying to find savings where they can and weigh different areas of spending against one anther. “It’s called prioritizing, and that’s how you have to do a budget.” He said that he and others realize that it will likely be impossible to avoid any cuts to education. “We’re broke. I mean, you can’t get past that. And certainly there has to be some reductions. It’s called just being smarter with our money that we have.” He said they are focusing on some personnel cost increases in Quinn’s proposed budget but do not plan to skip out on appropriating money for raises negotiated in the state’s new contract with union workers. “The raises — if they’re, of course, by union contract — we have to do the raises.” Trotter said he hopes that both chambers can take a broad look at the budget and try to problem-solve. He said Senate President John Cullerton, House Speaker Michael Madigan and Gov. Pat Quinn have been meeting to discuss the budget. A spokesperson for Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said Radogno had not been invited to any budget meetings with the governor.
“The House is known to look at things in silos. Hopefully as these next couple weeks advance, we can maybe bust into those silos and look at some other things,” Trotter said. “As we know, the budget is a whole, not just all these little parts to it.” He echoed the complaints heard from Senate Democrats in recent years that budget cuts are hurting those who most need help from the state. “Many of us feel the most vulnerable ones are being attacked. Last year it was health care; this year it is education,” Trotter said. “Why do you go to these programs? It’s like the old joke: because that’s where the money is. But at the same time, that is where [the most vulnerable people] are, too. We need to find a balance, and I think we can.”
Coalition pushes changes to redistricting process
By Meredith Colias
Groups wanting to revamp the state’s redistricting process hope to get enough popular support to add a constitutional amendment to the November 2014 ballot.
They are looking to bypass the legislature, where another citizens’ initiative for a proposal for a constitutional amendment failed in 2010. Voters can approve an amendment to be added to the Constitution by popular referendum, but supporters of the change would first need to collect at least 300,000 signatures to add it to the ballot. Reform groups attempted to collect the required signatures to get such a change before voters in 2010, but the effort fell short.
“This is the year,” said Ryan Blitstein, president of Change Illinois!, the main organization behind the latest push. Supporters believe this time have a better chance of success because they are giving themselves more time, they are better financed and have a broader coalition. Common Cause Illinois, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and other groups are backing the effort. The requirements under the state’s Constitution are spare for how legislative and congressional districts should be drawn once every decade. As long as districts are basically equal in population, they only have to be “compact” and “contiguous.” Those who want to change the current process say that the political party in power uses the Constitution’s vague requirements to draw the districts to give itself an unfair advantage to win elections. During the last process, Democrats held the power to draw the maps. If no single party holds both legislative chambers and the governor's office, the ability to set the boundaries is been determined several times by literally drawing a name out of hat.
Kent Redfield, a political science professor emeritus at the University of Illinois Springfield, said allowing one party to draw districts to its advantage was creating a more partisan environment at the Statehouse by “eliminating the middle” of the political spectrum. The reform group is proposing that the lines for legislative districts be drawn by a commission that does not include lawmakers, constitutional officers or political appointees. (Read the commission's proposed amendment here.) “Redistricting in Illinois is still a back-room process, one that fails to give the people of Illinois the transparency and accountability they deserve,” board member Sylvia Puente, executive director of the Latino Policy Forum, said in a prepared statement. “Our nonpartisan redistricting commission would bring the process out into the open, where it belongs, clearing the way for a more diverse candidate pool of public servants to lead,” said Puente, who also serves on the Illinois Issues Advisory Board.
Senate Republicans publicly backed the proposal to change the redistricting process that failed in 2010. Patty Schuh, a spokeswoman for Senate Leader Christine Radogno, said Republicans are supportive also support the renewed push. “We welcome their effort,” she said. “If they need our assistance, I’m sure they will be reaching out.”
Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat who spearheaded the drafting of the current legislative map said, “It’s a healthy process to let citizens and advocates do just what they are doing.” He said he was less supportive of following a model, such as the one California uses, that appoints an outside commission to approve the state’s redistricting plan. “I prefer a body that the people pick, versus some other designated person decides to pick,” he said. “Who picks the pickers? How do you ensure you have representation on whatever commission?” Raoul said that no matter what method the state uses, there would be complaints. “There’s no way that you can come up with a process and a map that all legislators are happy with.”
He said the issue was not as pressing at the moment. “We just went through a redistricting process. The map is set for the next 10 years,” Raoul said. He is more concerned about issues such as pensions and concealed carry that are expected to come up in the session’s final weeks, he said. “It’s not my top priority right now. I’d rather focus on … those things right now than something that’s going to happen eight years from now.” Redistricting helped the House and Senate Democrats both win supermajorities in their chambers in the last election.
Theoretically, if Democrats voted in a bloc, they are able to do things like override Gov. Pat Quinn’s vetoes and approve bonds for new spending without Republican support in either chamber. To see what Illinois could learn from redistricting experiences in other states, see “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” by Christopher Mooney in the January 2011 edition of Illinois Issues.
Groups wanting to revamp the state’s redistricting process hope to get enough popular support to add a constitutional amendment to the November 2014 ballot.
They are looking to bypass the legislature, where another citizens’ initiative for a proposal for a constitutional amendment failed in 2010. Voters can approve an amendment to be added to the Constitution by popular referendum, but supporters of the change would first need to collect at least 300,000 signatures to add it to the ballot. Reform groups attempted to collect the required signatures to get such a change before voters in 2010, but the effort fell short.
“This is the year,” said Ryan Blitstein, president of Change Illinois!, the main organization behind the latest push. Supporters believe this time have a better chance of success because they are giving themselves more time, they are better financed and have a broader coalition. Common Cause Illinois, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and other groups are backing the effort. The requirements under the state’s Constitution are spare for how legislative and congressional districts should be drawn once every decade. As long as districts are basically equal in population, they only have to be “compact” and “contiguous.” Those who want to change the current process say that the political party in power uses the Constitution’s vague requirements to draw the districts to give itself an unfair advantage to win elections. During the last process, Democrats held the power to draw the maps. If no single party holds both legislative chambers and the governor's office, the ability to set the boundaries is been determined several times by literally drawing a name out of hat.
Kent Redfield, a political science professor emeritus at the University of Illinois Springfield, said allowing one party to draw districts to its advantage was creating a more partisan environment at the Statehouse by “eliminating the middle” of the political spectrum. The reform group is proposing that the lines for legislative districts be drawn by a commission that does not include lawmakers, constitutional officers or political appointees. (Read the commission's proposed amendment here.) “Redistricting in Illinois is still a back-room process, one that fails to give the people of Illinois the transparency and accountability they deserve,” board member Sylvia Puente, executive director of the Latino Policy Forum, said in a prepared statement. “Our nonpartisan redistricting commission would bring the process out into the open, where it belongs, clearing the way for a more diverse candidate pool of public servants to lead,” said Puente, who also serves on the Illinois Issues Advisory Board.
Senate Republicans publicly backed the proposal to change the redistricting process that failed in 2010. Patty Schuh, a spokeswoman for Senate Leader Christine Radogno, said Republicans are supportive also support the renewed push. “We welcome their effort,” she said. “If they need our assistance, I’m sure they will be reaching out.”
Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat who spearheaded the drafting of the current legislative map said, “It’s a healthy process to let citizens and advocates do just what they are doing.” He said he was less supportive of following a model, such as the one California uses, that appoints an outside commission to approve the state’s redistricting plan. “I prefer a body that the people pick, versus some other designated person decides to pick,” he said. “Who picks the pickers? How do you ensure you have representation on whatever commission?” Raoul said that no matter what method the state uses, there would be complaints. “There’s no way that you can come up with a process and a map that all legislators are happy with.”
He said the issue was not as pressing at the moment. “We just went through a redistricting process. The map is set for the next 10 years,” Raoul said. He is more concerned about issues such as pensions and concealed carry that are expected to come up in the session’s final weeks, he said. “It’s not my top priority right now. I’d rather focus on … those things right now than something that’s going to happen eight years from now.” Redistricting helped the House and Senate Democrats both win supermajorities in their chambers in the last election.
Theoretically, if Democrats voted in a bloc, they are able to do things like override Gov. Pat Quinn’s vetoes and approve bonds for new spending without Republican support in either chamber. To see what Illinois could learn from redistricting experiences in other states, see “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” by Christopher Mooney in the January 2011 edition of Illinois Issues.
Thursday, May 09, 2013
Senate passes rival plan for pension changes
By Jamey Dunn with Meredith Colias contributing
The Illinois Senate approved a union-backed overhaul of the state’s pension systems today, a week after the House passed its own pension plan.
Senate Bill 2404 would cut worker and retiree benefits but would offer members of the pension system a say in what they give up and what they get in return for the reduction. Current employees would have three options:
Option 1 Employees would give up the current 3 percent compounded cost of living adjustment (COLA) for a flat 3 percent COLA that would be delayed for three years after retirement. In exchange, the employees would receive access to retiree health care plans, and future raises would count toward their pensions. They would also have the option of enrolling in 401(k)-like plan to supplement their pensions.
Option 2 Under this option, employees would keep their compounded COLAs but would lose access to retiree health care, which is currently subsidized by the state. Their future raises would not count toward pension benefits
Option 3 Employees would keep their COLAs and access to retiree health care, but they would pay 2 percent more of their salaries to their retirement benefits. Their COLAs would be delayed for three years after retirement.
Employees who are retired or who had given notice of their retirement by Jan. 1, 2013, would have two options:
Option 1 Keep the 3 percent compounded COLA but give up access to retiree health care.
Option 2 They could still have access to retiree health care and a 3 percent compounded COLA, but the COLA would be frozen for two years.
Senate President John Cullerton says that employees must be offered choices such as these to make any reductions in their benefits, which are protected by the state’s Constitution. “The contractual approach, I believe, is necessary to satisfy the pension clause of the Illinois Constitution,” which he says prohibits “unilateral reductions” of benefits.
The proposal is backed by a group of public employee unions and teachers' unions. “Our coalition is encouraged by this powerful show of support for a solution developed with unions representing public employees and retirees,” said a statement from the We Are One coalition. “Today's strong, bipartisan vote in the Senate sends a clear message to the House: SB 2404 is constitutional, reasonable and responsible. The House should pass the bill without change or delay.” However, the Illinois Retired Teacher's Association opposes the bill and has threatened a legal challenge if it becomes law.
SB 1, the House plan sponsored by Speaker Michael Madigan, does not offer employees anything in exchange for benefit cuts. 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 pension benefits, he or she would receive a compounded COLA until the pension benefit caught up with that cap. Then the COLA would be a flat amount going forward.
Madigan’s plan would shave more off the nearly $100 billion unfunded liability and save the state more in overall pension costs. SB 1 is expected to reduce the unfunded liability by $30 billion of the unfunded liability and save the state $140 billion in future pension costs. Cullerton said that depending on what options employees choose, his plan could reduce the liability by $8.5 billion to $15.7 billion and cut overall future pension costs by $45 billion to $52 billion.
Opponents of Cullerton’s plan said that it just wouldn’t save enough. “The big problem with this bill is that it doesn’t solve the problem,” Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican, said during the floor debate. He told senators not to get “too hung up” about what bill might be constitutional. “There isn’t anybody in this room who has an opinion that matters even a little about the issue of constitutionality. Period. There are seven people on the Illinois Supreme Court whose opinions are the only ones that matter. You will find lawyers who will tell you this bill is constitutional. You will find lawyers who will tell you this bill is not. You’ll find lawyers who will tell you that the Senate Bill 1 that passed the House is constitutional. You’ll find some that will tell you it’s not.”
But supporters of Cullerton’s plan argue that the House proposal will not result in any savings if the court rejects it. “You can’t just say: ‘Oh, screw the Constitution. Let’s just proceed without it,’” said Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat. Raoul said of SB 1: “It’s not constitutional just because you declare it's constitutional. You’ve got to make an argument based on the law.”
Gov. Pat Quinn this morning called upon Cullerton to put SB 1 up for a vote in his chamber. “I think it’s important for them – members of the Senate – to take a look at everything, but ultimately, it’s important for Senate Bill 1 to get a vote.” Murphy echoed that call on the Senate floor. “It’s May. This issue has dragged on for too long. We have a bill that is in all likelihood constitutional, that has passed the House, a bill that in all likelihood would have broad support in the Senate Republican caucus and a bill that the governor has indicated he would sign,” he said. “You’re on an island right now, given what I’ve just described. Please, please take yourself off the island. Focus on Senate Bill 1. And let’s finally get the meaningful pension reform that seems to be so close to our grasp if only you would be willing to take it.”
Cullerton pointed out that SB 35, which is similar to SB 1, did not gain the needed support to pass in the Senate. “That bill would have passed ... if every Republican would have voted for it,” he said. A spokesperson for Cullerton said that if Republicans can put up enough additional votes for SB 1 to pass, he would call it for a floor vote. “The bill that the House has passed, I believe, is risky if we pass that bill by itself because there would be a lawsuit. I think it [would have] a very difficult time being upheld. And we would delay by at least a year passing a reform. And we would then have to run back here [to] pass another law. There would be another lawsuit. We would lose at least a billion dollars of additional money we have to put in the pension system.”
Madigan said today that he does not know if he will call SB 2404 for a vote in the House. “I think the bill that passed out of the House is a good solid bill, well-thought-out, it has a broad base of support and it ought to be passed by the Senate. And I think they will pass it.” Madigan denied that the differing opinions between himself and Cullerton on how best to address the pension problem had become some kind of grudge match. “You can take that battle about personalities and throw it in the ashcan. This is all about correcting the serious fiscal problems in the state of Illinois.” When asked what he thought might cause the Senate to embrace his plan, he said, “I don’t have the answer to that question, but I have faith.”
The Illinois Senate approved a union-backed overhaul of the state’s pension systems today, a week after the House passed its own pension plan.
Senate Bill 2404 would cut worker and retiree benefits but would offer members of the pension system a say in what they give up and what they get in return for the reduction. Current employees would have three options:
Option 1 Employees would give up the current 3 percent compounded cost of living adjustment (COLA) for a flat 3 percent COLA that would be delayed for three years after retirement. In exchange, the employees would receive access to retiree health care plans, and future raises would count toward their pensions. They would also have the option of enrolling in 401(k)-like plan to supplement their pensions.
Option 2 Under this option, employees would keep their compounded COLAs but would lose access to retiree health care, which is currently subsidized by the state. Their future raises would not count toward pension benefits
Option 3 Employees would keep their COLAs and access to retiree health care, but they would pay 2 percent more of their salaries to their retirement benefits. Their COLAs would be delayed for three years after retirement.
Employees who are retired or who had given notice of their retirement by Jan. 1, 2013, would have two options:
Option 1 Keep the 3 percent compounded COLA but give up access to retiree health care.
Option 2 They could still have access to retiree health care and a 3 percent compounded COLA, but the COLA would be frozen for two years.
Senate President John Cullerton says that employees must be offered choices such as these to make any reductions in their benefits, which are protected by the state’s Constitution. “The contractual approach, I believe, is necessary to satisfy the pension clause of the Illinois Constitution,” which he says prohibits “unilateral reductions” of benefits.
The proposal is backed by a group of public employee unions and teachers' unions. “Our coalition is encouraged by this powerful show of support for a solution developed with unions representing public employees and retirees,” said a statement from the We Are One coalition. “Today's strong, bipartisan vote in the Senate sends a clear message to the House: SB 2404 is constitutional, reasonable and responsible. The House should pass the bill without change or delay.” However, the Illinois Retired Teacher's Association opposes the bill and has threatened a legal challenge if it becomes law.
SB 1, the House plan sponsored by Speaker Michael Madigan, does not offer employees anything in exchange for benefit cuts. 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 pension benefits, he or she would receive a compounded COLA until the pension benefit caught up with that cap. Then the COLA would be a flat amount going forward.
Madigan’s plan would shave more off the nearly $100 billion unfunded liability and save the state more in overall pension costs. SB 1 is expected to reduce the unfunded liability by $30 billion of the unfunded liability and save the state $140 billion in future pension costs. Cullerton said that depending on what options employees choose, his plan could reduce the liability by $8.5 billion to $15.7 billion and cut overall future pension costs by $45 billion to $52 billion.
Opponents of Cullerton’s plan said that it just wouldn’t save enough. “The big problem with this bill is that it doesn’t solve the problem,” Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican, said during the floor debate. He told senators not to get “too hung up” about what bill might be constitutional. “There isn’t anybody in this room who has an opinion that matters even a little about the issue of constitutionality. Period. There are seven people on the Illinois Supreme Court whose opinions are the only ones that matter. You will find lawyers who will tell you this bill is constitutional. You will find lawyers who will tell you this bill is not. You’ll find lawyers who will tell you that the Senate Bill 1 that passed the House is constitutional. You’ll find some that will tell you it’s not.”
But supporters of Cullerton’s plan argue that the House proposal will not result in any savings if the court rejects it. “You can’t just say: ‘Oh, screw the Constitution. Let’s just proceed without it,’” said Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat. Raoul said of SB 1: “It’s not constitutional just because you declare it's constitutional. You’ve got to make an argument based on the law.”
Gov. Pat Quinn this morning called upon Cullerton to put SB 1 up for a vote in his chamber. “I think it’s important for them – members of the Senate – to take a look at everything, but ultimately, it’s important for Senate Bill 1 to get a vote.” Murphy echoed that call on the Senate floor. “It’s May. This issue has dragged on for too long. We have a bill that is in all likelihood constitutional, that has passed the House, a bill that in all likelihood would have broad support in the Senate Republican caucus and a bill that the governor has indicated he would sign,” he said. “You’re on an island right now, given what I’ve just described. Please, please take yourself off the island. Focus on Senate Bill 1. And let’s finally get the meaningful pension reform that seems to be so close to our grasp if only you would be willing to take it.”
Cullerton pointed out that SB 35, which is similar to SB 1, did not gain the needed support to pass in the Senate. “That bill would have passed ... if every Republican would have voted for it,” he said. A spokesperson for Cullerton said that if Republicans can put up enough additional votes for SB 1 to pass, he would call it for a floor vote. “The bill that the House has passed, I believe, is risky if we pass that bill by itself because there would be a lawsuit. I think it [would have] a very difficult time being upheld. And we would delay by at least a year passing a reform. And we would then have to run back here [to] pass another law. There would be another lawsuit. We would lose at least a billion dollars of additional money we have to put in the pension system.”
Madigan said today that he does not know if he will call SB 2404 for a vote in the House. “I think the bill that passed out of the House is a good solid bill, well-thought-out, it has a broad base of support and it ought to be passed by the Senate. And I think they will pass it.” Madigan denied that the differing opinions between himself and Cullerton on how best to address the pension problem had become some kind of grudge match. “You can take that battle about personalities and throw it in the ashcan. This is all about correcting the serious fiscal problems in the state of Illinois.” When asked what he thought might cause the Senate to embrace his plan, he said, “I don’t have the answer to that question, but I have faith.”
Madigan pushes ahead with cost-shift talks
By Meredith Colias
Representatives from public schools, higher education and community colleges testifying before a House committee today warned Speaker Michael Madigan that gradually picking up the cost for their pensions would burden their already strained budgets.
Supporters of a cost shift on pensions are framing the debate as matter of fairness. Chicago Public Schools pays for most of its pension costs, and legislators supporting a cost shift want other districts, as well as public universities and community colleges, to begin to do the same for future retirement costs for employees. Seeing the cost-shift issue as a liability for the state, Madigan said he wanted to push through with a plan. “There has been a full year for everyone to absorb” this notion, he said. “This is going to happen.” Districts outside of Chicago set salaries that determine pension benefits the state has to pay. Madigan said he wants to see “the people that are spending the money pay the bill.”He did not offer specifics on how such a plan might be phased in out over time.
The fear among opponents is that making cash–strapped school districts outside of Chicago pick up the costs for pensions will force districts to lay off more teachers or raise local property taxes if they are not already at their maximum limit in counties with property tax caps. A spokeswoman for Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno, who is opposed to a cost shift, said in a statement that it would “add insult to injury to downstate and suburban school districts and property taxpayers.”
“It changes the game in terms of the school district’s bottom line,” said Mike Jacoby, executive director of the Illinois Association of School Business Officials. Universities taking on pensions of their own might be forced to raise tuition rates. Avijit Ghosh, representing the University of Illinois, said a university pension cost shift would affect its ability to retain high quality faculty and conduct research. “We cannot hide” from the impact of cuts universities would have to make to cover pensions costs, he said. Steve Cunningham of Northern Illinois University said administrators would be willing to work with legislators, but the transition would have to be phased in slowly enough for the university to able to absorb the cost.
Rep. Elaine Nekritz, a Northbrook Democrat, said that if pensions changes such as the plan the House passed last week, becomes law, the cost of future benefits would decrease. Nekrtiz said that SB 1 would also reduce the state’s liability, freeing up money that could be spent on education.
Madigan has said he hopes to get cost shift legislation passed this session, while keeping the plan as a separate proposal from the other pension reform bills the legislature is considering. The cost shift issue helped to sink efforts at pension reform in the final days of spring session last year.
“As much as we would like to think he controls everything around here, there is the necessity of putting 60 votes on something,” Nekrtiz said. “We’ll see whether 60 legislators are willing to support that when it comes up.”
Representatives from public schools, higher education and community colleges testifying before a House committee today warned Speaker Michael Madigan that gradually picking up the cost for their pensions would burden their already strained budgets.
Supporters of a cost shift on pensions are framing the debate as matter of fairness. Chicago Public Schools pays for most of its pension costs, and legislators supporting a cost shift want other districts, as well as public universities and community colleges, to begin to do the same for future retirement costs for employees. Seeing the cost-shift issue as a liability for the state, Madigan said he wanted to push through with a plan. “There has been a full year for everyone to absorb” this notion, he said. “This is going to happen.” Districts outside of Chicago set salaries that determine pension benefits the state has to pay. Madigan said he wants to see “the people that are spending the money pay the bill.”He did not offer specifics on how such a plan might be phased in out over time.
The fear among opponents is that making cash–strapped school districts outside of Chicago pick up the costs for pensions will force districts to lay off more teachers or raise local property taxes if they are not already at their maximum limit in counties with property tax caps. A spokeswoman for Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno, who is opposed to a cost shift, said in a statement that it would “add insult to injury to downstate and suburban school districts and property taxpayers.”
“It changes the game in terms of the school district’s bottom line,” said Mike Jacoby, executive director of the Illinois Association of School Business Officials. Universities taking on pensions of their own might be forced to raise tuition rates. Avijit Ghosh, representing the University of Illinois, said a university pension cost shift would affect its ability to retain high quality faculty and conduct research. “We cannot hide” from the impact of cuts universities would have to make to cover pensions costs, he said. Steve Cunningham of Northern Illinois University said administrators would be willing to work with legislators, but the transition would have to be phased in slowly enough for the university to able to absorb the cost.
Rep. Elaine Nekritz, a Northbrook Democrat, said that if pensions changes such as the plan the House passed last week, becomes law, the cost of future benefits would decrease. Nekrtiz said that SB 1 would also reduce the state’s liability, freeing up money that could be spent on education.
Madigan has said he hopes to get cost shift legislation passed this session, while keeping the plan as a separate proposal from the other pension reform bills the legislature is considering. The cost shift issue helped to sink efforts at pension reform in the final days of spring session last year.
“As much as we would like to think he controls everything around here, there is the necessity of putting 60 votes on something,” Nekrtiz said. “We’ll see whether 60 legislators are willing to support that when it comes up.”
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Medical marijuana bill heads to Senate floor
By Meredith Colias
Medical marijuana legislation could be one vote away from the governor's desk.
A Senate committee approved House Bill 1 on a 10-5 vote today. Its sponsor, Sen. William Haine, an Alton Democrat and former state's attorney, told committee members that the bill had been written with strict restrictions to keep the cultivation and distribution of marijuana under the oversight of the state. “It is not an opening to legalization,” he said. The House approved the bill last month.
Gov. Pat Quinn has spoken positively about the concept of medical marijuana but has refused to take a stance on HB 1.
The bill would create a four-year pilot program only for patients diagnosed with 33 diseases specified in the bill. They and their caregivers would have to pass background checks, and patients would only be eligible to receive a state-approved medical marijuana carrying card if the state believes they have an established relationship with the doctor who recommends it for them. Patients would have to be 18 or older and would be limited to buying 2.5 ounces of marijuana every two weeks. The Department of Public Health would oversee a database to keep track to reduce fraud and make sure that patients are not buying more medical marijuana than their limit. If they were caught violating the state’s restrictions, they would have their licenses permanently revoked.
During today's committee hearing, the issue stirred the emotions of many lawmakers, who related the pain and burden of friends and family members suffering from illnesses like terminal cancer and multiple sclerosis. "We all have anecdotal stories,” Haine said. Because the federal government classifies marijuana as a narcotic, he said ill people have to resort to breaking the law to relieve their daily pain by purchasing marijuana on the streets. "These are people who are law-abiding. Where do they get it?"
Other members of the committee expressed concerns that legalizing medical marijuana would have unintended consequences beyond what was written in the bill. Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican, said he was dissuaded from supporting it after seeing how marijuana became a gateway drug for young people eventually addicted to heroin. “We need to consider the unintended consequences,” Murphy said. “There is a potential downside to this, and it’s big, and it’s scary.” Republican Leader Christine Radogno told Haine she doubted that if medical marijuana were legalized, it would strictly stay in the hands of its intended patients. “It will get out on the streets,” she said. She told Haine she thought the bill’s scope was too narrow for it to work. “I don’t think it addresses the bigger picture. I really think the question is if we should legalize it.”
Anthony Grootens, chief of police in Jacksonville, said that field sobriety tests used by police would not detect impairment from marijuana. “We’ll be dead in the water trying to enforce this,” he said. Haine said after the committee that police would still be able to tell whether a driver was impaired, and those with a medical marijuana card would have to submit to the test or they would lose their card.
Patients testifying before the committee shared stories about their treatment for some of 33 diseases specified by the bill. They said marijuana had eased the burden for those who were gravely ill. Jim Champion, an MS patient said, "It's a highly exclusive club you do not want to be a member of.”
Haine said he hopes to call the bill for a floor vote next week. The Senate approved medical marijuana legislation in 2009, but HB 1 is a different proposal, and the makeup of the chamber has changed since then.
Medical marijuana legislation could be one vote away from the governor's desk.
A Senate committee approved House Bill 1 on a 10-5 vote today. Its sponsor, Sen. William Haine, an Alton Democrat and former state's attorney, told committee members that the bill had been written with strict restrictions to keep the cultivation and distribution of marijuana under the oversight of the state. “It is not an opening to legalization,” he said. The House approved the bill last month.
Gov. Pat Quinn has spoken positively about the concept of medical marijuana but has refused to take a stance on HB 1.
The bill would create a four-year pilot program only for patients diagnosed with 33 diseases specified in the bill. They and their caregivers would have to pass background checks, and patients would only be eligible to receive a state-approved medical marijuana carrying card if the state believes they have an established relationship with the doctor who recommends it for them. Patients would have to be 18 or older and would be limited to buying 2.5 ounces of marijuana every two weeks. The Department of Public Health would oversee a database to keep track to reduce fraud and make sure that patients are not buying more medical marijuana than their limit. If they were caught violating the state’s restrictions, they would have their licenses permanently revoked.
During today's committee hearing, the issue stirred the emotions of many lawmakers, who related the pain and burden of friends and family members suffering from illnesses like terminal cancer and multiple sclerosis. "We all have anecdotal stories,” Haine said. Because the federal government classifies marijuana as a narcotic, he said ill people have to resort to breaking the law to relieve their daily pain by purchasing marijuana on the streets. "These are people who are law-abiding. Where do they get it?"
Other members of the committee expressed concerns that legalizing medical marijuana would have unintended consequences beyond what was written in the bill. Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican, said he was dissuaded from supporting it after seeing how marijuana became a gateway drug for young people eventually addicted to heroin. “We need to consider the unintended consequences,” Murphy said. “There is a potential downside to this, and it’s big, and it’s scary.” Republican Leader Christine Radogno told Haine she doubted that if medical marijuana were legalized, it would strictly stay in the hands of its intended patients. “It will get out on the streets,” she said. She told Haine she thought the bill’s scope was too narrow for it to work. “I don’t think it addresses the bigger picture. I really think the question is if we should legalize it.”
Anthony Grootens, chief of police in Jacksonville, said that field sobriety tests used by police would not detect impairment from marijuana. “We’ll be dead in the water trying to enforce this,” he said. Haine said after the committee that police would still be able to tell whether a driver was impaired, and those with a medical marijuana card would have to submit to the test or they would lose their card.
Patients testifying before the committee shared stories about their treatment for some of 33 diseases specified by the bill. They said marijuana had eased the burden for those who were gravely ill. Jim Champion, an MS patient said, "It's a highly exclusive club you do not want to be a member of.”
Haine said he hopes to call the bill for a floor vote next week. The Senate approved medical marijuana legislation in 2009, but HB 1 is a different proposal, and the makeup of the chamber has changed since then.
Cullerton defends union-backed pension plan
By Jamey Dunn
Despite threats of at least one lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of his plan, Illinois Senate President John Cullerton today defended his pension reform bill as the best option on the table.
Cullerton announced this week that he had reached a deal with unions that represent public employees and teachers. However, one group that represents retired teachers says the bill violates the pension protections in the state’s Constitution. “They have their own legal theories. I can’t stop anybody from suing. But clearly, this is a stronger argument for the constitutionality than the other versions that are out there,” Cullerton said today during a committee hearing on his bill. The Senate Executive Committee approved Senate Bill 2404, and Cullerton says he plans to bring it up for a floor vote tomorrow.
Union officials say the bill is constitutional because it offers current and retired employees several options, which give them something in exchange for reducing benefits. (See this blog from Monday for details on the options.) Last week, the House approved SB 1, which would unilaterally reduce retirement benefits. House Speaker Michael Madigan supports the plan, but Cullerton and the unions say it is unconstitutional. “We have always acknowledged that contract principles of offer acceptance and consideration are the way to go to reach an agreement to solve the fiscal crisis,” said John Stevens, a lawyer for the We Are One unions' coalition.
Michael Carrigan, president of the Illinois AFL-CIO, said the unions involved in the negotiations agree. “We cannot ignore the Illinois Constitution. The Constitution mandates that our public pension benefits cannot be diminished or impaired. We believe this legislation in its present form represents a fair, responsible and constitutional solution to the public pensions problem.”
Cullerton said that even though individual members of the pension systems or other groups could sue, that agreement matters. “As I’ve said before, anybody can sue. But the fact that these unions are not going to sue is very significant,” he said. “I’m not on the Supreme Court. I’m not saying that I know exactly what the court’s going to do, but a much stronger argument can be made for the constitutionality of this approach because it’s taking the very plain words of the Constitution, and then acknowledging it and then working around it.”
But the Illinois Association for Retired Teachers is not on board. “To be sure Sen. Cullerton’s legislation represent a willingness to include workers and retirees in this process,” said Bob Pinkerton, vice president of the Illinois Association for Retired Teachers. However, he said that the association was not involved in the negotiations over the bill and cannot support it. “The IRTA believes that this legislation diminishes the state’s responsibility to a contract to which we fulfilled our part in it’s entirety. The IRTA believes that this diminishment does not come with any choice that is beneficial to its membership.” Pinkerton compared the options offered to retirees as a choice between having a gun to their heads or jumping off of a cliff. When asked whether the association would sue if Cullerton’s plan becomes law, Pinkerton said, “We would hope that it would not come to that, but we would reserve the right to do so if it appears that we need to.” He said the group has a legal defense fund and could afford a court challenge.
Leaders from two of the states teachers' unions — the Illinois Federation of Teachers and the Illinois Education Association — said many of their members, including retirees, support SB 2404. Both the IFT and IEA were involved in the negotiations over the plan. “We do have overwhelming support from our members, and obviously we're going to have some who disagree. ... But I have heard from retired members as well as active members who are saying: ‘Thank you. This is what we wanted you to do, to be at the table, to make a constitutional and fair proposal and work to support our pensions,’” said Cinda Klickna, president of the Illinois Education Association.
Critics of Cullerton’s plan say it would not do enough to reduce the unfunded liability, now pegged at nearly $100 billion. Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican, urged Cullerton to call SB 1 for a vote. “I just don’t think this solves the problem and saves enough money, and I think it invites us to have to be back here far too soon to have to face this again. The House bill isn’t perfect. Nobody’s happy about it. But the reality is, it passed that chamber, it has broad support in our caucus and the governor has said he’d sign it.” But Cullerton noted that a similar plan already failed to pass in the Senate. “We’re trying to get 30 votes here. That bill fell short. That’s another problem that we haven’t talked about.” To that, Murphy implied that Cullerton could do more from his leadership position to put votes on SB 1. “There are ways that things work around here, and sometimes they work a little better with a little elbow grease when that’s applied.” With a laugh, Cullerton responded: “Well, maybe you can change your mind on this bill. I don’t know.”
Madigan’s plan is expected to shave almost $30 billion of the unfunded liability and save the state $140 billion in future pension costs. Cullerton said that since employees would be offered choices, his bill presents a range of savings. He said that could reduce the liability by a figure between $8.5 billion and $15.7 billion and cut the overall future pension costs by between $45 billion and $52 billion. “You don’t save as much money along the way. I admit that,” he said. But he said his plan is a “much less risky approach” because it attempts to satisfy the pension clause in the Constitution. Supporters of the House plan have argued that the state’s fiscal crisis and pension problem, which is the worst in the nation, give it standing to ask for special powers from the courts to address the unfunded pension systems.
Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Democrat from Chicago, said that just because both plans could face potential lawsuits, it does not mean they are equal. “The notion that comparing two bills and saying, ‘Well, people may sue [over] either bill, and so basically, they’re basically at the same risk’ is garbage, essentially. Because it doesn’t take a lawyer to look at the English language and look at the explicit language in the Constitution that protects pension benefits as a contractual relationship,” he said.
Cullerton has said he is open to tweaks being made to his bill if it makes it to the House. However, Carrigan today warned that if changes were made, the unions’ support would be swiftly withdrawn. “If that happens, we all lose.”
Carrigan said of the measure, “Our position today [is that] this is final, bottom-line agreement that has been memorialized in the bill.”
Despite threats of at least one lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of his plan, Illinois Senate President John Cullerton today defended his pension reform bill as the best option on the table.
Cullerton announced this week that he had reached a deal with unions that represent public employees and teachers. However, one group that represents retired teachers says the bill violates the pension protections in the state’s Constitution. “They have their own legal theories. I can’t stop anybody from suing. But clearly, this is a stronger argument for the constitutionality than the other versions that are out there,” Cullerton said today during a committee hearing on his bill. The Senate Executive Committee approved Senate Bill 2404, and Cullerton says he plans to bring it up for a floor vote tomorrow.
Union officials say the bill is constitutional because it offers current and retired employees several options, which give them something in exchange for reducing benefits. (See this blog from Monday for details on the options.) Last week, the House approved SB 1, which would unilaterally reduce retirement benefits. House Speaker Michael Madigan supports the plan, but Cullerton and the unions say it is unconstitutional. “We have always acknowledged that contract principles of offer acceptance and consideration are the way to go to reach an agreement to solve the fiscal crisis,” said John Stevens, a lawyer for the We Are One unions' coalition.
Michael Carrigan, president of the Illinois AFL-CIO, said the unions involved in the negotiations agree. “We cannot ignore the Illinois Constitution. The Constitution mandates that our public pension benefits cannot be diminished or impaired. We believe this legislation in its present form represents a fair, responsible and constitutional solution to the public pensions problem.”
Cullerton said that even though individual members of the pension systems or other groups could sue, that agreement matters. “As I’ve said before, anybody can sue. But the fact that these unions are not going to sue is very significant,” he said. “I’m not on the Supreme Court. I’m not saying that I know exactly what the court’s going to do, but a much stronger argument can be made for the constitutionality of this approach because it’s taking the very plain words of the Constitution, and then acknowledging it and then working around it.”
But the Illinois Association for Retired Teachers is not on board. “To be sure Sen. Cullerton’s legislation represent a willingness to include workers and retirees in this process,” said Bob Pinkerton, vice president of the Illinois Association for Retired Teachers. However, he said that the association was not involved in the negotiations over the bill and cannot support it. “The IRTA believes that this legislation diminishes the state’s responsibility to a contract to which we fulfilled our part in it’s entirety. The IRTA believes that this diminishment does not come with any choice that is beneficial to its membership.” Pinkerton compared the options offered to retirees as a choice between having a gun to their heads or jumping off of a cliff. When asked whether the association would sue if Cullerton’s plan becomes law, Pinkerton said, “We would hope that it would not come to that, but we would reserve the right to do so if it appears that we need to.” He said the group has a legal defense fund and could afford a court challenge.
Leaders from two of the states teachers' unions — the Illinois Federation of Teachers and the Illinois Education Association — said many of their members, including retirees, support SB 2404. Both the IFT and IEA were involved in the negotiations over the plan. “We do have overwhelming support from our members, and obviously we're going to have some who disagree. ... But I have heard from retired members as well as active members who are saying: ‘Thank you. This is what we wanted you to do, to be at the table, to make a constitutional and fair proposal and work to support our pensions,’” said Cinda Klickna, president of the Illinois Education Association.
Critics of Cullerton’s plan say it would not do enough to reduce the unfunded liability, now pegged at nearly $100 billion. Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican, urged Cullerton to call SB 1 for a vote. “I just don’t think this solves the problem and saves enough money, and I think it invites us to have to be back here far too soon to have to face this again. The House bill isn’t perfect. Nobody’s happy about it. But the reality is, it passed that chamber, it has broad support in our caucus and the governor has said he’d sign it.” But Cullerton noted that a similar plan already failed to pass in the Senate. “We’re trying to get 30 votes here. That bill fell short. That’s another problem that we haven’t talked about.” To that, Murphy implied that Cullerton could do more from his leadership position to put votes on SB 1. “There are ways that things work around here, and sometimes they work a little better with a little elbow grease when that’s applied.” With a laugh, Cullerton responded: “Well, maybe you can change your mind on this bill. I don’t know.”
Madigan’s plan is expected to shave almost $30 billion of the unfunded liability and save the state $140 billion in future pension costs. Cullerton said that since employees would be offered choices, his bill presents a range of savings. He said that could reduce the liability by a figure between $8.5 billion and $15.7 billion and cut the overall future pension costs by between $45 billion and $52 billion. “You don’t save as much money along the way. I admit that,” he said. But he said his plan is a “much less risky approach” because it attempts to satisfy the pension clause in the Constitution. Supporters of the House plan have argued that the state’s fiscal crisis and pension problem, which is the worst in the nation, give it standing to ask for special powers from the courts to address the unfunded pension systems.
Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Democrat from Chicago, said that just because both plans could face potential lawsuits, it does not mean they are equal. “The notion that comparing two bills and saying, ‘Well, people may sue [over] either bill, and so basically, they’re basically at the same risk’ is garbage, essentially. Because it doesn’t take a lawyer to look at the English language and look at the explicit language in the Constitution that protects pension benefits as a contractual relationship,” he said.
Cullerton has said he is open to tweaks being made to his bill if it makes it to the House. However, Carrigan today warned that if changes were made, the unions’ support would be swiftly withdrawn. “If that happens, we all lose.”
Carrigan said of the measure, “Our position today [is that] this is final, bottom-line agreement that has been memorialized in the bill.”
Monday, May 06, 2013
Cullerton to move union-backed pension bill this week
By Jamey Dunn
Senate Democrats have reached a deal with unions on pension changes after the House passed its own plan last week.
“Whenever you can get unions to agree on a major pension bill, you should codify it,” Senate President John Cullerton said today after presenting the bill to Democrats in a caucus meeting. Cullerton said he is optimistic that many Democrats in his chamber will vote in favor of the bill. The proposal will be amended onto Senate Bill 2404. According to an overview from Senate Democrats, the legislation would give workers a choice about which benefits they want to sacrifice. Current employees would have three options:
Option 1
Employees would give up the current 3 percent compounded cost of living adjustment (COLA) for a flat 3 percent COLA that would be delayed for three years after retirement. In exchange, the employees would receive access to retiree health care plans, and future raises would count toward their pensions. They would also have the option of enrolling in 401(k)-like plan to supplement their pensions.
Option 2
Under this option, employees would keep their compounded COLAs but would lose access to retiree health care, which is currently subsidized by the state. Their future raises would not count toward pension benefits
Option 3
Employees would keep their COLAs and access to retiree health care, but they would pay 2 percent more of their salaries to their retirement benefits. Their COLAs would be delayed for three years after retirement.
Employees who are retired or who have given notice of their retirement by Jan. 1, 2013, would have two options:
Option 1
Workers could keep the 3 percent compounded COLA but give up access to retiree health care.
Option 2
They could still have access to retiree health care and a 3 percent compounded COLA, but the COLA would be frozen for two years. “The first year, they would have their COLA frozen; year two, the COLA would be back in there; year three, the COLA would be frozen; and then the COLA would go on as it should from then on,” said Aurora Democratic Sen. Linda Holmes, who sponsors the bill with Cullerton.
Holmes said the bill would not increase retirement ages for workers and would not include new revenue from closing tax loopholes.
The proposal would save less than the House plan, SB 1, which would cut pension benefits unilaterally instead of offering options to employees. Cullerton believes that employees must be given a choice for a proposal to be accepted by the courts. “We believe it’s the strongest argument for a bill to be constitutional.” He said that since the unions agreed on the bill, they do not plan to go to court over it. “When this bill is passed, the unions are not going to sue.” However, individual workers would be free to mount a legal challenge if it becomes law.
The We Are One union coalition released a statement today encouraging lawmakers to support the new plan. “The union coalition has made a great effort to ensure fairness for the public employees and retirees who did not cause this problem, to ensure the stability of the pension systems for future generations, and to offer a credible way forward. This agreement is our coalition's bottom line,” Michael Carrigan, president of the Illinois AFL-CIO, said in a written statement. “We continue to strongly oppose Speaker [Michael] Madigan's mega-bill, SB 1, which threatens to rob the retirement savings of teachers, police officers and others in public service, by 20-40 percent. His proposal is not only drastically unfair, but it is blatantly unconstitutional, rendering any advertised savings fictional. We urge lawmakers from both parties in both chambers to embrace the agreed bill and oppose SB 1.”
Madigan took a firm stance on the House floor last week, vowing to do all he could to get SB 1 through the process. He said of the union negotiations: “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.”
Cullerton said it is difficult to calculate how much his plan would save because it would vary depending on which options employees and retirees choose. He said he expects it would be about $46 billion over the next 30 years, and $850 million in Fiscal Year 2015. That compares to SB 1, which is expected to save about $1.8 billion in the first fiscal year it goes into effect. However, Cullerton noted, “If that bill is declared unconstitutional, there’s zero savings.”
While he believes SB1 is unconstitutional, Cullerton said its passage in the House did help to move his negotiations with unions forward. “It has been much aided by the fact that the House and the speaker have pushed a bill over here, which has I think forced the unions to compromise. And I appreciate the fact that they have done it. It’s not easy because this is voluntarily agreeing to take away money from their members.” However, he denied that the deal was the result of some grand scheme between Madigan and him. “I wasn’t part of his negotiations with his caucus. I didn’t know what we were going to be able to accomplish with the unions, so I didn’t involve him in this negotiation. But now we have this agreement, and so now it’s time to see if we can reach an agreement between the two houses,” he said. “I’m optimistic. I think the unions have to go out now and explain this approach to their members [and] to the members of the House and the Senate [of] both parties.” Cullerton said he expects bipartisan support of the bill. A spokesperson for Senate Republicans declined to comment, saying they had yet to see the proposal.
When asked if he planned to call SB 1 for a vote, Cullerton said. “Let’s first see what happens with this and see what the reaction is to this.” He said he plans to hold a hearing on SB 2404 in the Executive Committee, which is scheduled for 3 p.m. Wednesday, and bring the bill up for a floor vote on Thursday.
Senate Democrats have reached a deal with unions on pension changes after the House passed its own plan last week.
“Whenever you can get unions to agree on a major pension bill, you should codify it,” Senate President John Cullerton said today after presenting the bill to Democrats in a caucus meeting. Cullerton said he is optimistic that many Democrats in his chamber will vote in favor of the bill. The proposal will be amended onto Senate Bill 2404. According to an overview from Senate Democrats, the legislation would give workers a choice about which benefits they want to sacrifice. Current employees would have three options:
Option 1
Employees would give up the current 3 percent compounded cost of living adjustment (COLA) for a flat 3 percent COLA that would be delayed for three years after retirement. In exchange, the employees would receive access to retiree health care plans, and future raises would count toward their pensions. They would also have the option of enrolling in 401(k)-like plan to supplement their pensions.
Option 2
Under this option, employees would keep their compounded COLAs but would lose access to retiree health care, which is currently subsidized by the state. Their future raises would not count toward pension benefits
Option 3
Employees would keep their COLAs and access to retiree health care, but they would pay 2 percent more of their salaries to their retirement benefits. Their COLAs would be delayed for three years after retirement.
Employees who are retired or who have given notice of their retirement by Jan. 1, 2013, would have two options:
Option 1
Workers could keep the 3 percent compounded COLA but give up access to retiree health care.
Option 2
They could still have access to retiree health care and a 3 percent compounded COLA, but the COLA would be frozen for two years. “The first year, they would have their COLA frozen; year two, the COLA would be back in there; year three, the COLA would be frozen; and then the COLA would go on as it should from then on,” said Aurora Democratic Sen. Linda Holmes, who sponsors the bill with Cullerton.
Holmes said the bill would not increase retirement ages for workers and would not include new revenue from closing tax loopholes.
The proposal would save less than the House plan, SB 1, which would cut pension benefits unilaterally instead of offering options to employees. Cullerton believes that employees must be given a choice for a proposal to be accepted by the courts. “We believe it’s the strongest argument for a bill to be constitutional.” He said that since the unions agreed on the bill, they do not plan to go to court over it. “When this bill is passed, the unions are not going to sue.” However, individual workers would be free to mount a legal challenge if it becomes law.
The We Are One union coalition released a statement today encouraging lawmakers to support the new plan. “The union coalition has made a great effort to ensure fairness for the public employees and retirees who did not cause this problem, to ensure the stability of the pension systems for future generations, and to offer a credible way forward. This agreement is our coalition's bottom line,” Michael Carrigan, president of the Illinois AFL-CIO, said in a written statement. “We continue to strongly oppose Speaker [Michael] Madigan's mega-bill, SB 1, which threatens to rob the retirement savings of teachers, police officers and others in public service, by 20-40 percent. His proposal is not only drastically unfair, but it is blatantly unconstitutional, rendering any advertised savings fictional. We urge lawmakers from both parties in both chambers to embrace the agreed bill and oppose SB 1.”
Madigan took a firm stance on the House floor last week, vowing to do all he could to get SB 1 through the process. He said of the union negotiations: “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.”
Cullerton said it is difficult to calculate how much his plan would save because it would vary depending on which options employees and retirees choose. He said he expects it would be about $46 billion over the next 30 years, and $850 million in Fiscal Year 2015. That compares to SB 1, which is expected to save about $1.8 billion in the first fiscal year it goes into effect. However, Cullerton noted, “If that bill is declared unconstitutional, there’s zero savings.”
While he believes SB1 is unconstitutional, Cullerton said its passage in the House did help to move his negotiations with unions forward. “It has been much aided by the fact that the House and the speaker have pushed a bill over here, which has I think forced the unions to compromise. And I appreciate the fact that they have done it. It’s not easy because this is voluntarily agreeing to take away money from their members.” However, he denied that the deal was the result of some grand scheme between Madigan and him. “I wasn’t part of his negotiations with his caucus. I didn’t know what we were going to be able to accomplish with the unions, so I didn’t involve him in this negotiation. But now we have this agreement, and so now it’s time to see if we can reach an agreement between the two houses,” he said. “I’m optimistic. I think the unions have to go out now and explain this approach to their members [and] to the members of the House and the Senate [of] both parties.” Cullerton said he expects bipartisan support of the bill. A spokesperson for Senate Republicans declined to comment, saying they had yet to see the proposal.
When asked if he planned to call SB 1 for a vote, Cullerton said. “Let’s first see what happens with this and see what the reaction is to this.” He said he plans to hold a hearing on SB 2404 in the Executive Committee, which is scheduled for 3 p.m. Wednesday, and bring the bill up for a floor vote on Thursday.
Saturday, May 04, 2013
AFSCME: Prison assault is product of overcrowding
By Jamey Dunn
Union officials say the attempted sexual assault of a corrections officer in the Danville Correctional Center illustrates the dangers associated with the state’s overcrowded prison system.
According the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, which represents corrections employees statewide, an inmate who was housed in a gym at the medium security prison was in a separate housing unit doing laundry for other inmates housed in the gym. He allegedly lured a corrections officer into a laundry facility by claiming a machine was broken, punched her in the jaw and attempted to rape her. The union’s account says the guard was saved when another inmate responded to her screams and halted the attack.
The Department of Corrections denies that the officer was alone at the time of the attack. “The corrections officer who was assaulted was absolutely not the only officer with the inmates at the time. IDoC procedure calls for three: two officers and a control officer. That proven effective level of staffing was in place during the shift covering this assault,” Tom Shaer, a spokesman for the department, said in a written statement.
The department acknowledges an attack occurred but gives few details. “Danville Correctional Center is on lockdown after an assault on an officer early this morning. No serious injuries were sustained, and a thorough investigation is under way. Any physical contact with a guard is unacceptable, but again, fortunately, the officer was not seriously injured,” said a written statement from the department. “The Illinois Department of Corrections takes all incidents very seriously, as safety and security are our constant priorities. We have interviewed the officer, who is at home, other staff and inmate witnesses as we gather all the facts. Director [Tony] Godinez has also talked to the officer and extended his continued thanks for the fine work being done by this experienced individual and all DOC personnel.”
Gov. Pat Quinn has closed several corrections facilities including halfway houses, juvenile detention centers, a super-maximum security prison in Tamms and a women’s prison in Dwight. Quinn said that the state’s budget woes made the closures necessary. Women from Dwight were moved to the Logan Correctional Center in Lincoln. Men from Logan swapped places with women at the Lincoln Correctional Center. As part of the transition, an estimated 600 male prisoners were bused to six other prisons to be housed in gymnasiums filled with bunk beds. The department describes the situation as temporary, but it has yet to give specifics on its plan to stop putting prisoners in gyms. “It’s a temporary dorm setting. Obviously, we have no control over the inmates that we receive into the system,” corrections spokeswomen Stacey Solano told Illinois Issues last month when asked about the prisoners in gyms. Similar conditions existed at other low level security facilities before the closures. However, inmates are housed on large wings instead of in gyms.
AFSCME sued to try to block the closures, arguing that they would create an unsafe environment for its members. But the Illinois Supreme Court sided with Quinn. “The men and women who work in our prisons provide for the safety of the public, and they deserve the safest possible working conditions,” AFSCME executive director Henry Bayer said in a written statement today. “Their job is difficult, but the choices of politicians have made it worse. The state has ignored its responsibility to provide the resources needed to maintain safety, and now workers are bearing the terrible consequences.”
The Danville Correctional Center was designed to hold 900 inmates in single cells. By putting more than one prisoner in each cell, the department pegs the prison’s operational capacity at 1,862. According to the union’s count, at 1,931 the prison is currently over operational capacity.
AFSCME says that the prison is also understaffed. The union’s account of the attack says that the officer was alone in the housing unit. “Although prison directives require that two officers be posted on each unit at all times, they are routinely circumvented by management on the overnight shift, leaving a single officer alone. The union has repeatedly objected to this practice at Danville and elsewhere, fearing just this sort of opportunistic and predatory violence.”
However, a spokesman for DoC said that the department does not leave mandatory guard positions open. “In every correctional facility, there are mandatory posts. The Department of Corrections covers every mandatory post and does not leave them vacant,” Shaer said. The most recent report on the Danville facility from the prison watchdog group The John Howard Association is from 2011. The report says that like many DoC facilities, Danville was “plagued by staff vacancies.” The report predicted that understaffing could be an issue for the prison. “As more staff near retirement age, vacancies may cause problems in the near future.”
The Danville attack comes after recent reports of violent incidents at maximum security facilities, including the murders of three inmates at the Menard Correctional Center. But Anders Lindall, a spokesperson for AFSCME Council 31, said problems are not exclusive to the higher security facilities. “The dangers of crowding and violence are not only at the max security level. Every facility in the system is interdependent on others,” Lindall said.
Despite the department’s statement, Lindall said it is “on going practice” at some facilities to cover staffing gaps by having officers from mandatory posts cover other duties on the night shift. He said the union has “repeatedly” raised concerns about it. “You have an inmate who is housed in a gym and an officer who was left alone on a housing unit — all circumstances about which we have sounded the alarm in the past. This shouldn’t have happened.”
Union officials say the attempted sexual assault of a corrections officer in the Danville Correctional Center illustrates the dangers associated with the state’s overcrowded prison system.
According the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, which represents corrections employees statewide, an inmate who was housed in a gym at the medium security prison was in a separate housing unit doing laundry for other inmates housed in the gym. He allegedly lured a corrections officer into a laundry facility by claiming a machine was broken, punched her in the jaw and attempted to rape her. The union’s account says the guard was saved when another inmate responded to her screams and halted the attack.
The Department of Corrections denies that the officer was alone at the time of the attack. “The corrections officer who was assaulted was absolutely not the only officer with the inmates at the time. IDoC procedure calls for three: two officers and a control officer. That proven effective level of staffing was in place during the shift covering this assault,” Tom Shaer, a spokesman for the department, said in a written statement.
The department acknowledges an attack occurred but gives few details. “Danville Correctional Center is on lockdown after an assault on an officer early this morning. No serious injuries were sustained, and a thorough investigation is under way. Any physical contact with a guard is unacceptable, but again, fortunately, the officer was not seriously injured,” said a written statement from the department. “The Illinois Department of Corrections takes all incidents very seriously, as safety and security are our constant priorities. We have interviewed the officer, who is at home, other staff and inmate witnesses as we gather all the facts. Director [Tony] Godinez has also talked to the officer and extended his continued thanks for the fine work being done by this experienced individual and all DOC personnel.”
Gov. Pat Quinn has closed several corrections facilities including halfway houses, juvenile detention centers, a super-maximum security prison in Tamms and a women’s prison in Dwight. Quinn said that the state’s budget woes made the closures necessary. Women from Dwight were moved to the Logan Correctional Center in Lincoln. Men from Logan swapped places with women at the Lincoln Correctional Center. As part of the transition, an estimated 600 male prisoners were bused to six other prisons to be housed in gymnasiums filled with bunk beds. The department describes the situation as temporary, but it has yet to give specifics on its plan to stop putting prisoners in gyms. “It’s a temporary dorm setting. Obviously, we have no control over the inmates that we receive into the system,” corrections spokeswomen Stacey Solano told Illinois Issues last month when asked about the prisoners in gyms. Similar conditions existed at other low level security facilities before the closures. However, inmates are housed on large wings instead of in gyms.
AFSCME sued to try to block the closures, arguing that they would create an unsafe environment for its members. But the Illinois Supreme Court sided with Quinn. “The men and women who work in our prisons provide for the safety of the public, and they deserve the safest possible working conditions,” AFSCME executive director Henry Bayer said in a written statement today. “Their job is difficult, but the choices of politicians have made it worse. The state has ignored its responsibility to provide the resources needed to maintain safety, and now workers are bearing the terrible consequences.”
The Danville Correctional Center was designed to hold 900 inmates in single cells. By putting more than one prisoner in each cell, the department pegs the prison’s operational capacity at 1,862. According to the union’s count, at 1,931 the prison is currently over operational capacity.
AFSCME says that the prison is also understaffed. The union’s account of the attack says that the officer was alone in the housing unit. “Although prison directives require that two officers be posted on each unit at all times, they are routinely circumvented by management on the overnight shift, leaving a single officer alone. The union has repeatedly objected to this practice at Danville and elsewhere, fearing just this sort of opportunistic and predatory violence.”
However, a spokesman for DoC said that the department does not leave mandatory guard positions open. “In every correctional facility, there are mandatory posts. The Department of Corrections covers every mandatory post and does not leave them vacant,” Shaer said. The most recent report on the Danville facility from the prison watchdog group The John Howard Association is from 2011. The report says that like many DoC facilities, Danville was “plagued by staff vacancies.” The report predicted that understaffing could be an issue for the prison. “As more staff near retirement age, vacancies may cause problems in the near future.”
The Danville attack comes after recent reports of violent incidents at maximum security facilities, including the murders of three inmates at the Menard Correctional Center. But Anders Lindall, a spokesperson for AFSCME Council 31, said problems are not exclusive to the higher security facilities. “The dangers of crowding and violence are not only at the max security level. Every facility in the system is interdependent on others,” Lindall said.
Despite the department’s statement, Lindall said it is “on going practice” at some facilities to cover staffing gaps by having officers from mandatory posts cover other duties on the night shift. He said the union has “repeatedly” raised concerns about it. “You have an inmate who is housed in a gym and an officer who was left alone on a housing unit — all circumstances about which we have sounded the alarm in the past. This shouldn’t have happened.”
Thursday, May 02, 2013
House passes comprehensive pension changes
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.”
Madigan: Same-sex marriage picking up some votes
By Meredith Colias
After the Illinois House took up a major pension vote today, Speaker Michael Madigan told reporters that a bill to legalize same-sex marriage has gained some ground on its way to a final vote.
Last month Madigan said that Senate Bill 10 was about a dozen votes short of the 60 votes required to pass the bill. “We’re a little closer, but we’re not yet there. But we’re a little closer,” he said.
The Senate passed the bill on Valentine’s Day. Chicago Democratic Rep. Greg Harris, who sponsors the bill in the House, says he is waiting to know for certain that it will pass before bringing it up for a final vote. Gov. Pat Quinn has been supportive of the legislation and said he will sign it when it gets to his desk. If the bill passes, Illinois will join 10 other states that have legalized gay marriage in recent years. Rhode Island recently became the latest state, joining all other New England states that had already said "I do" to legalization of same-sex marriage. Harris said he is working to explain the legislation and to address the concerns of those who are opposed or undecided.
Under the legislation, religious institutions would be exempt from performing same-sex ceremonies. Protections were added to the Senate version to allow churches to also refuse to host wedding receptions on church property. “We’re talking about what the bill does,” Harris said. “It’s very clear, and it says it in black and white. I think there are a lot of red herrings being thrown out there. You’ve seen this in every state that this has come up. ... Scare tactics are scare tactics, but they are not true.” One Republican, Sen. Jason Barickman, a Champaign Republican voted for the bill when it passed the Senate. Two House Republicans, Rep. Ronald Sendack from Downers Grove and Rep. Ed Sullivan from Mundelein, have publicly said they would vote for the bill.
Persistent opposition remains to the bill. Ralph Rivera, a lobbyist for the Illinois Family Institute, said he is willing to wait out the push because he believes supporters do not have enough votes for the bill to ultimately pass. “It’s a lot to overcome,” he said.
But Harris is optimistic he will gain enough votes for the bill to pass. “Everyone I’ve talked to is very mindful of the fact in the past two years, public opinion has shifted so dramatically on this issue,” he said. “The shift has come from people saying, the time is right, we just need to get this done.”
After the Illinois House took up a major pension vote today, Speaker Michael Madigan told reporters that a bill to legalize same-sex marriage has gained some ground on its way to a final vote.
Last month Madigan said that Senate Bill 10 was about a dozen votes short of the 60 votes required to pass the bill. “We’re a little closer, but we’re not yet there. But we’re a little closer,” he said.
The Senate passed the bill on Valentine’s Day. Chicago Democratic Rep. Greg Harris, who sponsors the bill in the House, says he is waiting to know for certain that it will pass before bringing it up for a final vote. Gov. Pat Quinn has been supportive of the legislation and said he will sign it when it gets to his desk. If the bill passes, Illinois will join 10 other states that have legalized gay marriage in recent years. Rhode Island recently became the latest state, joining all other New England states that had already said "I do" to legalization of same-sex marriage. Harris said he is working to explain the legislation and to address the concerns of those who are opposed or undecided.
Under the legislation, religious institutions would be exempt from performing same-sex ceremonies. Protections were added to the Senate version to allow churches to also refuse to host wedding receptions on church property. “We’re talking about what the bill does,” Harris said. “It’s very clear, and it says it in black and white. I think there are a lot of red herrings being thrown out there. You’ve seen this in every state that this has come up. ... Scare tactics are scare tactics, but they are not true.” One Republican, Sen. Jason Barickman, a Champaign Republican voted for the bill when it passed the Senate. Two House Republicans, Rep. Ronald Sendack from Downers Grove and Rep. Ed Sullivan from Mundelein, have publicly said they would vote for the bill.
Persistent opposition remains to the bill. Ralph Rivera, a lobbyist for the Illinois Family Institute, said he is willing to wait out the push because he believes supporters do not have enough votes for the bill to ultimately pass. “It’s a lot to overcome,” he said.
But Harris is optimistic he will gain enough votes for the bill to pass. “Everyone I’ve talked to is very mindful of the fact in the past two years, public opinion has shifted so dramatically on this issue,” he said. “The shift has come from people saying, the time is right, we just need to get this done.”
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Senate hopes to woo Quinn with new gambling plan
By Meredith Colias
The Illinois Senate passed yet another gambling expansion, and supporters hope newly added ethical guidelines will persuade Gov. Pat Quinn to sign it.
In the last two years, the legislature has approved two gaming expansion bills, and Quinn has vetoed both. The Senate today approved Senate Bill 1739 on a 32-20-1 vote, with six members not voting.
The new bill is similar to previous proposals. It includes slot machines at horse racing tracks and new casinos for Chicago, Rockford, Danville, the southern suburbs of Chicago and Lake County. Existing casinos could get more gaming positions. Chicago could use some its new gaming positions at its airports.
Waukegan Democratic Sen. Terry Link, who sponsored all three of the gaming bills, said he made the changes in response to the governor's criticism of past plans. The latest version of the bill bans casino license-holders from contributing to political campaigns, something the governor has pushed for in the past. It also gives the Illinois Gaming Board the last word in oversight on the proposed Chicago casino. A body would be created to own the casino, so it would not be directly owned by the city. Under the plan, the Chicago Casino Development Authority would contract with an operator that would actually run the facility. However, Quinn said he was worried that the authority might try to circumvent the regulatory power of the Gaming Board.
Sen. Dale Righter, a Mattoon Republican who voted against the bill, said the legislation would potentially penalize people who owned establishments such as small bars that were licensed for video poker and made private contributions to a political campaign on their own. “What we don’t want is those people back home [writing small checks to campaigns], and the next thing you know someone on the gaming board is knocking on their door,” he said.
Link said the bill would provide a financial windfall for the state. The Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability estimated revenues from licensing fees for the slot machines at racetracks, new casinos and new gaming positions at existing casinos would bring in $1.2 billion initially, and $268 million annually after that. “It not only will save thousands of jobs, it will create thousands of jobs, and it will help our educational system for the future,” he said. Representatives from existing casinos say they think the revenue potential is not that large.
Tom Swoik, executive director of the Illinois Casino Gaming Association, said most of the existing operators are not interested in new gaming positions and believe the expansion would cannibalize the 10 already-existing casinos in the state. Swoik said a lot of the money estimated to come from the expansion was already spoken for and would not be available to go to schools. “We believe that this is going to leave very little money for education,” he said.
Link said that according to the COGFA report, of the $268 million projected proceeds, about $128.7 million is slated to go to education. He said he hoped Quinn would recognize the “huge effort” made to incorporate the governor’s suggestions into the current bill.
Quinn said in his February budget address that he could support gaming only with a proposal that had ethical protections, with the money taken in by the state going to education. A spokeswoman for Quinn said today that the governor is not taking a stance on the bill, but she said she does see some improvements. “It appears to be moving in the right direction. We’re reviewing it in detail. We’re pleased to see a number of our proposals included,” Brooke Anderson said.
The Illinois Senate passed yet another gambling expansion, and supporters hope newly added ethical guidelines will persuade Gov. Pat Quinn to sign it.
In the last two years, the legislature has approved two gaming expansion bills, and Quinn has vetoed both. The Senate today approved Senate Bill 1739 on a 32-20-1 vote, with six members not voting.
The new bill is similar to previous proposals. It includes slot machines at horse racing tracks and new casinos for Chicago, Rockford, Danville, the southern suburbs of Chicago and Lake County. Existing casinos could get more gaming positions. Chicago could use some its new gaming positions at its airports.
Waukegan Democratic Sen. Terry Link, who sponsored all three of the gaming bills, said he made the changes in response to the governor's criticism of past plans. The latest version of the bill bans casino license-holders from contributing to political campaigns, something the governor has pushed for in the past. It also gives the Illinois Gaming Board the last word in oversight on the proposed Chicago casino. A body would be created to own the casino, so it would not be directly owned by the city. Under the plan, the Chicago Casino Development Authority would contract with an operator that would actually run the facility. However, Quinn said he was worried that the authority might try to circumvent the regulatory power of the Gaming Board.
Sen. Dale Righter, a Mattoon Republican who voted against the bill, said the legislation would potentially penalize people who owned establishments such as small bars that were licensed for video poker and made private contributions to a political campaign on their own. “What we don’t want is those people back home [writing small checks to campaigns], and the next thing you know someone on the gaming board is knocking on their door,” he said.
Link said the bill would provide a financial windfall for the state. The Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability estimated revenues from licensing fees for the slot machines at racetracks, new casinos and new gaming positions at existing casinos would bring in $1.2 billion initially, and $268 million annually after that. “It not only will save thousands of jobs, it will create thousands of jobs, and it will help our educational system for the future,” he said. Representatives from existing casinos say they think the revenue potential is not that large.
Tom Swoik, executive director of the Illinois Casino Gaming Association, said most of the existing operators are not interested in new gaming positions and believe the expansion would cannibalize the 10 already-existing casinos in the state. Swoik said a lot of the money estimated to come from the expansion was already spoken for and would not be available to go to schools. “We believe that this is going to leave very little money for education,” he said.
Link said that according to the COGFA report, of the $268 million projected proceeds, about $128.7 million is slated to go to education. He said he hoped Quinn would recognize the “huge effort” made to incorporate the governor’s suggestions into the current bill.
Quinn said in his February budget address that he could support gaming only with a proposal that had ethical protections, with the money taken in by the state going to education. A spokeswoman for Quinn said today that the governor is not taking a stance on the bill, but she said she does see some improvements. “It appears to be moving in the right direction. We’re reviewing it in detail. We’re pleased to see a number of our proposals included,” Brooke Anderson said.
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.”
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:
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.”
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.
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.”
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Rep. Nekritz: "This feels like this could be it" for pension changes
By Jamey Dunn
A key player in the Illinois House said a new proposal from Speaker Michael Madigan could be the pension change legislation that goes the distance in the House.
“This feels like this could be it,” said Rep. Elaine Nekritz, who has sponsored several pension bills and has been at the center of the push to change public employee retirement benefits and cut costs in the system that is underfunded by about $100 billion. The newest pension proposal is presented in an amendment to Senate Bill 1, which was Senate President John Cullerton’s preferred plan. The amendment would replace Cullerton’s plan with a language that is similar to House Bill 3411, a proposal from Nekritz that has bipartisan report. Among other things, HB 3411 would have capped the amount of salary used to calculate benefits and limited the amount of pension income considered for Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs).
Madigan plans to present the amendment in the House pension committee scheduled for 8 a.m. Wednesday. Nekritz, a Democrat from Northbrook, said Madigan’s hands-on approach is one of the reasons that she thinks this plan could pass in the House. “It’s a Speaker Madigan bill, and he is the sponsor, which I think is an important statement about his engagement in this,” she said. Nekritz said that because of procedural constraints, the bill would not come up for a floor vote Wednesday, but a committee vote is expected.
Some of the components of the new proposal are the same as the previous plan. The amendment to SB 1 would:
The amendment to SB 1 also includes an eight-page preamble that lays out the case for the need to reduce retirement benefits, which are protected by the state’s Constitution. Nekritz and others have argued that the situation is so bad that the courts should give the state special powers to cut benefits and make other changes to save the systems. Those interested in predicting some of the points the state might make in a legal argument to defend unilateral pension changes could take their hints from the language, which describes the state’s budgetary turmoil and the steps that have been taken to try to reach fiscal stability. “The state's credit rating has consistently worsened in the assessment of all three major ratings agencies, the state's backlog of unpaid bills has not grown smaller, and the various non-discretionary and formula-driven expenses whose growth has created the lion's share of the problem are projected to continue unabated. Under the current payment schedule set in Public Act 88-593, the pension payment especially is expected to grow extremely rapidly until Fiscal Year 2045,” the bill says. “Consequently, the coming months and years will necessarily see much more action by the State to achieve fiscal stabilization. If these steps toward fiscal stabilization do not include pension reform to restrain the growth of the annual pension payment, the result will be devastating and dramatic cuts to education, public safety, and transportation.”
The legislation goes on to say that without such changes to pensions, the state would struggle with meeting other obligations described in the Constitution. “The impact of such actions on the Illinois economy, and on the health, safety, welfare, and educational development of the people would likely be extremely severe. This harm could include significant economic contraction, which would in turn exacerbate the underlying fiscal challenge, resulting in a downward spiral of standard of living and likely leading to an eventual inability of the state to meet its short term statutory and Constitutional responsibilities.
Unions leaders say the proposal is clearly unconstitutional. “Our coalition has said time and again that we oppose unfair, unconstitutional pension cuts. Public workers and retirees should not be punished for a problem politicians created,” said a statement from the We Are One Coalition, which includes public employee unions and teachers' unions. “While we want to work together to solve the pension problem, the amendment filed today by the House speaker represents the same illegal approach to slashing hard-earned life savings protected by the Illinois Constitution. Should it become law, we believe a successful legal challenge is all but certain, with the bill saving nothing and the state’s budget problems made worse.”
While the House is considering Madigan’s plan, Cullerton says he is still negotiating with union leaders to craft a compromise in the Senate. “We’re still negotiation with the unions to try to get the unions to be for a bill. That would be very helpful. We are prepared, I would say, [to] soon -- in the next week or so -- to move ahead with votes. ... It’s all about getting something passed,” Cullerton said. He noted that the Senate rejected a proposal from Evanston Democratic Sen. Daniel Biss, who has partnered with Nekritz on the efforts to pass pensions changes. That bill is similar to Madigan’s proposal. However, it would have sifted pension costs for future employees to schools.
Cullerton believes that lawmakers cannot change pension benefits unilaterally without offering them something in exchange. His version of SB 1 contained a proposal similar to HB 3411, but it also contained a backup plan that Cullerton said would kick in if the courts find the House proposal unconstitutional. Cullerton’s proposal would offer employees a choice, sometimes referred to as consideration, between access to retiree health care or a compounded COLA. Cullerton said that any plan resulting from negotiations with the unions would also have some sort of consideration. He noted that having union support of any plan would not necessarily make it constitutional, and individual employees would still be free to challenge it in court. “That just makes it easier to pass it. There still could be a lawsuit, sure. Anybody could sue.”
A key player in the Illinois House said a new proposal from Speaker Michael Madigan could be the pension change legislation that goes the distance in the House.
“This feels like this could be it,” said Rep. Elaine Nekritz, who has sponsored several pension bills and has been at the center of the push to change public employee retirement benefits and cut costs in the system that is underfunded by about $100 billion. The newest pension proposal is presented in an amendment to Senate Bill 1, which was Senate President John Cullerton’s preferred plan. The amendment would replace Cullerton’s plan with a language that is similar to House Bill 3411, a proposal from Nekritz that has bipartisan report. Among other things, HB 3411 would have capped the amount of salary used to calculate benefits and limited the amount of pension income considered for Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs).
Madigan plans to present the amendment in the House pension committee scheduled for 8 a.m. Wednesday. Nekritz, a Democrat from Northbrook, said Madigan’s hands-on approach is one of the reasons that she thinks this plan could pass in the House. “It’s a Speaker Madigan bill, and he is the sponsor, which I think is an important statement about his engagement in this,” she said. Nekritz said that because of procedural constraints, the bill would not come up for a floor vote Wednesday, but a committee vote is expected.
Some of the components of the new proposal are the same as the previous plan. The amendment to SB 1 would:
- Increase the retirement age for employees younger than age 46. Employees from age 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.
- Pensionable salary would be capped at $109,000, the limit that is currently used for Tier Two employees. HB 3411 called for a higher cap at $113,700. The cap would increase at the rate of one half of the Consumer Price Index that is set for urban consumers.
- The amount of pensionable salary that would be eligible for COLAs would be based 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 COLA. For example, if an employee worked for 30 years, then $30,000 of their retirement benefit would see an annual COLA.
The amendment to SB 1 also includes an eight-page preamble that lays out the case for the need to reduce retirement benefits, which are protected by the state’s Constitution. Nekritz and others have argued that the situation is so bad that the courts should give the state special powers to cut benefits and make other changes to save the systems. Those interested in predicting some of the points the state might make in a legal argument to defend unilateral pension changes could take their hints from the language, which describes the state’s budgetary turmoil and the steps that have been taken to try to reach fiscal stability. “The state's credit rating has consistently worsened in the assessment of all three major ratings agencies, the state's backlog of unpaid bills has not grown smaller, and the various non-discretionary and formula-driven expenses whose growth has created the lion's share of the problem are projected to continue unabated. Under the current payment schedule set in Public Act 88-593, the pension payment especially is expected to grow extremely rapidly until Fiscal Year 2045,” the bill says. “Consequently, the coming months and years will necessarily see much more action by the State to achieve fiscal stabilization. If these steps toward fiscal stabilization do not include pension reform to restrain the growth of the annual pension payment, the result will be devastating and dramatic cuts to education, public safety, and transportation.”
The legislation goes on to say that without such changes to pensions, the state would struggle with meeting other obligations described in the Constitution. “The impact of such actions on the Illinois economy, and on the health, safety, welfare, and educational development of the people would likely be extremely severe. This harm could include significant economic contraction, which would in turn exacerbate the underlying fiscal challenge, resulting in a downward spiral of standard of living and likely leading to an eventual inability of the state to meet its short term statutory and Constitutional responsibilities.
Unions leaders say the proposal is clearly unconstitutional. “Our coalition has said time and again that we oppose unfair, unconstitutional pension cuts. Public workers and retirees should not be punished for a problem politicians created,” said a statement from the We Are One Coalition, which includes public employee unions and teachers' unions. “While we want to work together to solve the pension problem, the amendment filed today by the House speaker represents the same illegal approach to slashing hard-earned life savings protected by the Illinois Constitution. Should it become law, we believe a successful legal challenge is all but certain, with the bill saving nothing and the state’s budget problems made worse.”
While the House is considering Madigan’s plan, Cullerton says he is still negotiating with union leaders to craft a compromise in the Senate. “We’re still negotiation with the unions to try to get the unions to be for a bill. That would be very helpful. We are prepared, I would say, [to] soon -- in the next week or so -- to move ahead with votes. ... It’s all about getting something passed,” Cullerton said. He noted that the Senate rejected a proposal from Evanston Democratic Sen. Daniel Biss, who has partnered with Nekritz on the efforts to pass pensions changes. That bill is similar to Madigan’s proposal. However, it would have sifted pension costs for future employees to schools.
Cullerton believes that lawmakers cannot change pension benefits unilaterally without offering them something in exchange. His version of SB 1 contained a proposal similar to HB 3411, but it also contained a backup plan that Cullerton said would kick in if the courts find the House proposal unconstitutional. Cullerton’s proposal would offer employees a choice, sometimes referred to as consideration, between access to retiree health care or a compounded COLA. Cullerton said that any plan resulting from negotiations with the unions would also have some sort of consideration. He noted that having union support of any plan would not necessarily make it constitutional, and individual employees would still be free to challenge it in court. “That just makes it easier to pass it. There still could be a lawsuit, sure. Anybody could sue.”
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Quinn plans to sign off on funding for home health care
By Meredith Colias
Seniors will be able to rely on funding to continue to pay for state approved in-home care through June 30.
The Senate passed House Bill 207 and HB 2275, twin measures to provide an influx of $173 million needed for the Illinois Department of Aging to cover costs for its Community Care Program for the remainder of the fiscal year and streamline costs as the number of seniors covered by the program continues to grow. Both bills passed the Senate unanimously on 54-0 votes, with five members not voting. The bills now go to Gov. Pat Quinn for his signature. His office said he would sign both into law.
The Community Care Program provides funding to service providers that dispatch caretakers for qualified seniors to take care of everyday tasks such as laundry, groceries, bathing and dressing. The 85,000 seniors enrolled in the program have to qualify under economic guidelines. Some are also of varying nationalities who do not speak English as a first language, and in-home care workers provide a cultural touchstone for them. About 70 percent of those in the program are enrolled in Medicaid. Changes to the Medicaid system approved by lawmakers last year would have tightened requirements for the program and reduced costs, but the federal government denied the state’s request to alter eligibility for Community Care.
Chicago Democratic Sen. Heather Steans, who sponsors the bills, said the program “takes care of elderly residents in their homes rather than institutions,” which are much more expensive. The Department of Aging estimates it pays about $8,000 for a caregiver to check in with seniors in their homes but would pay about $32,000 for round-the-clock care at a nursing home. HB 207 provides $173 million the Department of Aging says it needs to continue to pay service providers who care for qualified elderly within their homes.
Without the funding, department officials have effectively been unable to pay service providers since mid-March. Advocates told the General Assembly that smaller providers likely would not be able to operate without resuming payments from the state. The department said the extra money was needed because it was under-appropriated in the current fiscal year. After FY 2014, which begins July 1, the state will not allow the department to push off expenses into the following fiscal year. Rep. Chapin Rose, a Mahomet Republican, applauded the move and said the Senate should “not allow these bills to accumulate under the radar.” HB 2275 puts restrictions on workers by using GPS devices to track them to ensure they are properly going to clients’ homes and sets limits for the amount of time workers can claim they took to perform individual tasks.
Scott Vogel, a spokesman for the Service Employees International Union, said the union restrictions in HB 2275 are reasonable to obtain funding for caregivers.
Seniors will be able to rely on funding to continue to pay for state approved in-home care through June 30.
The Senate passed House Bill 207 and HB 2275, twin measures to provide an influx of $173 million needed for the Illinois Department of Aging to cover costs for its Community Care Program for the remainder of the fiscal year and streamline costs as the number of seniors covered by the program continues to grow. Both bills passed the Senate unanimously on 54-0 votes, with five members not voting. The bills now go to Gov. Pat Quinn for his signature. His office said he would sign both into law.
The Community Care Program provides funding to service providers that dispatch caretakers for qualified seniors to take care of everyday tasks such as laundry, groceries, bathing and dressing. The 85,000 seniors enrolled in the program have to qualify under economic guidelines. Some are also of varying nationalities who do not speak English as a first language, and in-home care workers provide a cultural touchstone for them. About 70 percent of those in the program are enrolled in Medicaid. Changes to the Medicaid system approved by lawmakers last year would have tightened requirements for the program and reduced costs, but the federal government denied the state’s request to alter eligibility for Community Care.
Chicago Democratic Sen. Heather Steans, who sponsors the bills, said the program “takes care of elderly residents in their homes rather than institutions,” which are much more expensive. The Department of Aging estimates it pays about $8,000 for a caregiver to check in with seniors in their homes but would pay about $32,000 for round-the-clock care at a nursing home. HB 207 provides $173 million the Department of Aging says it needs to continue to pay service providers who care for qualified elderly within their homes.
Without the funding, department officials have effectively been unable to pay service providers since mid-March. Advocates told the General Assembly that smaller providers likely would not be able to operate without resuming payments from the state. The department said the extra money was needed because it was under-appropriated in the current fiscal year. After FY 2014, which begins July 1, the state will not allow the department to push off expenses into the following fiscal year. Rep. Chapin Rose, a Mahomet Republican, applauded the move and said the Senate should “not allow these bills to accumulate under the radar.” HB 2275 puts restrictions on workers by using GPS devices to track them to ensure they are properly going to clients’ homes and sets limits for the amount of time workers can claim they took to perform individual tasks.
Scott Vogel, a spokesman for the Service Employees International Union, said the union restrictions in HB 2275 are reasonable to obtain funding for caregivers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
