By Jamey Dunn
The Illinois House released its proposed legislative map today as Republicans decried what they saw as a lack of transparency in the redistricting process.
Watchers of Illinois politics got a brief chance to peruse proposed legislative districts posted on the House Democrats' website this morning, only to see the map disappear. Copies floated around various news outlets today as House Democrats declined to comment on whether the map was the real deal. House Democrats released an official copy of their proposal late this afternoon.
Committee hearings are scheduled for this Sunday in Chicago and Tuesday at the Statehouse. But Republicans say more time and information, such as the demographic makeups of the districts, are needed for the public to have a chance to make informed comments before the map is approved — likely next week.
“It is disingenuous for the House Democrats to release this map late in the afternoon on a Friday with very limited access to demographic data and an analysis that explains why they drew the boundaries where they did. How can the residents of our state have time to access the information …digest it and be prepared to testify at a hearing in Chicago on Sunday afternoon? A hearing in Chicago and one in Springfield is not enough; we are calling for more statewide hearings in the next few weeks before a vote is taken,” House Minority Leader Tom Cross said in a written statement.
Chicago Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, chair of the House Redistricting Committee, was coy at a hearing this morning when asked whether the Democrats will supply more data and analysis to go along with their map. “I don’t have a timetable, so I can’t really let you know when and what [may be released].”
For the first time since 1971, one party controls both legislative chambers and the governor’s office. That means Democrats can pass a map much as they have other controversial pieces of legislation recently: without any Republican support. “They can run the thing like a straight bill, pass it, get it signed — if they can all stay together, which is often a question with Democrats in particular. But I think they probably will in this case. … They can do what they want, and they can do it during the regular session,” said Christopher Mooney, a political studies professor with the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois.
When the party balance was split during several redistricting attempts in past decades, the General Assembly was not able to come to an agreement on a map, so the decision of which party chose the districts came down to a so-called coin toss. But that process also delayed the final decisions on the map well past the regular legislative session. “That is a completely different time in the legislative year…that’s September. The regular session is way over,” Mooney said.
The accelerated timeline this year means the drawing of the legislative lines, upon which lawmakers depend for their political lives, could potentially serve as a big political bargaining chip as legislators try to put votes on controversial bills such as workers’ compensation reform, changes to pension benefits for current state employees and politically unsavory cuts to the state budget.
“If I was running one of the chambers and I had some difficult bills that I wanted to get done — whether they be these very serious cuts to human services or local government and education or the pension changes that are very dramatic and very impactful on current and future state employees … if I was running the party and I wanted to get through the next election, one way I would do that is try [to use the map] to force some of the other party members onto those bills and therefore take the steam out … the partisan angst out of those bills,” Mooney said.
Some Senate Republicans yesterday referred to the map Democrats proposed in their chamber as a “shocker map” to be used as a scare tactic. They said that they expected the plan to change over the coming days.
However, Kent Redfield, an emeritus political science professor at the University of Illinois Springfield, said he does not expect drastic changes to the map because Democrats hold all the cards and need to pass a map in the next week to keep it that way. If a map is not passed by the end of May, Republican votes would be needed for it to go into effect before the 2012 primary election. “My guess is that there’s not going to be a lot of difference, and they don’t have a lot of time.”
He said he does not expect that testimony given at the upcoming committee hearings will do much to sway Democrats. “We’ll have some dog and pony shows before the Democrats are going to pass what they’re going to pass.”
Redfield said that Democrats will likely do well in the next elections under whatever map they pass, but the shrinking population of the city of Chicago may have dashed some hopes of a map that could have been even more favorable to the majority party. “The Democrats are going to do fine on both maps. But I think their expectations were a lot higher until they saw the census figures.’
He said the population shifts away from stronghold Democratic Chicago districts and into the suburbs made Democrats consider “plan B in terms of protecting incumbents.” The House Democrats’ map, like the proposal from their Senate counterparts, places several pairs of incumbent Republicans in the same districts. That would leave them with the choices of facing a primary challenge, running in a different district and moving if they won, or retiring.
He added that every 10 years, mapmakers look to predict the future in terms of population and political shifts, to varying degrees of success. “The map that the Republicans drew in the '80s, they really badly guessed what was going to happen with population in suburban Cook and Will [counties,] and [House Speaker Michael] Madigan was able to retake the chamber.”
Redfield added: “They didn’t anticipate the population growth and the political shift in the suburbs. And who knows how well the Democrats will guess this time?”
Friday, May 20, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Some lawmakers call for new oversight
of prepaid college tuition program
By Lauren N. Johnson
On the same day Gov. Pat Quinn appointed a new chair of the Illinois Student Assistance Commission, some lawmakers are calling for prepaid tuition to be removed from the commission’s control.
Rep. Jim Durkin, a Western Springs Republican, said the commission has mismanaged the fund and made poor investments that put at least 55,000 contracts at risk.
“College Illinois is the worst-funded prepaid college tuition program in the country,” said Durkin, who today suggested that the program be placed in the hands of Illinois Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka. While Durkin said that the principles behind the program are fine, he remarked that potentially risky alternative investment tools used by the commission, such as hedge funds, are not.
Brad Hahn, spokesman for Topinka, said Durkin would have to lay out specifics on the shift but that all stakeholders are working to regain confidence from parents and students in the program. “The comptroller believes it is critical that when parents invest in College Illinois, they can be confident the funds will be there when the time comes to send their kids to school.”
Hahn added, “She is interested in making sure that happens and is willing to assist in whatever way the governor and General Assembly deem best.” Durkin said he pushed for the fund to be placed under the comptroller’s office instead of the state treasurer’s office because that office presently manages Bright Start, another college investment program.
Durkin’s proposal was prompted by a report from Crain’s Chicago Business that found the commission has been shifting a larger portion of College Illinois’ portfolio into higher risk investments. A recent report from Auditor General William Holland concluded that the commission did not follow the state’s procurement law when it sought an outside firm to provide investment advice.
However, John Samuels, spokesman for ISAC, said its administrators are confident that a new audit Holland is conducting on the program — as requested in House Resolution 174, approved in April — will have different findings. “That work will provide clarity and hopefully restore confidence through the findings …because we are confident that it will show that the program has been well-administered.” Samuels said the audit would address some specific questions and concerns raised.
“What we’re looking at here is a fund that’s being managed more like an investment group that meets on a Wednesday night and is looking for the flavor of the day than a College Illinois kind of a fund,” said Rep. Chad Hays, a Caitlin Republican.
Quinn appointed Kym Hubbard, who will serve as the commission’s chair, and Miguel Del Valle, who will serve as a member of the commission. Hubbard is also the treasurer and chief investment officer of Ernst &; Young, and Del Valle, a former state senator and former Chicago city clerk, was the chair of the Illinois P-20 Education Council.
Durkin said the appointments are a positive step but that more needs to be done to ensure that College Illinois is properly administered. He plans to introduce legislation before the end of the month that would call for the program to be placed under the control of the comptroller’s office.
For more on lawmaker’s concerns about the College Illinois Program, see Illinois Issues, May 2011.
On the same day Gov. Pat Quinn appointed a new chair of the Illinois Student Assistance Commission, some lawmakers are calling for prepaid tuition to be removed from the commission’s control.
Rep. Jim Durkin, a Western Springs Republican, said the commission has mismanaged the fund and made poor investments that put at least 55,000 contracts at risk.
“College Illinois is the worst-funded prepaid college tuition program in the country,” said Durkin, who today suggested that the program be placed in the hands of Illinois Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka. While Durkin said that the principles behind the program are fine, he remarked that potentially risky alternative investment tools used by the commission, such as hedge funds, are not.
Brad Hahn, spokesman for Topinka, said Durkin would have to lay out specifics on the shift but that all stakeholders are working to regain confidence from parents and students in the program. “The comptroller believes it is critical that when parents invest in College Illinois, they can be confident the funds will be there when the time comes to send their kids to school.”
Hahn added, “She is interested in making sure that happens and is willing to assist in whatever way the governor and General Assembly deem best.” Durkin said he pushed for the fund to be placed under the comptroller’s office instead of the state treasurer’s office because that office presently manages Bright Start, another college investment program.
Durkin’s proposal was prompted by a report from Crain’s Chicago Business that found the commission has been shifting a larger portion of College Illinois’ portfolio into higher risk investments. A recent report from Auditor General William Holland concluded that the commission did not follow the state’s procurement law when it sought an outside firm to provide investment advice.
However, John Samuels, spokesman for ISAC, said its administrators are confident that a new audit Holland is conducting on the program — as requested in House Resolution 174, approved in April — will have different findings. “That work will provide clarity and hopefully restore confidence through the findings …because we are confident that it will show that the program has been well-administered.” Samuels said the audit would address some specific questions and concerns raised.
“What we’re looking at here is a fund that’s being managed more like an investment group that meets on a Wednesday night and is looking for the flavor of the day than a College Illinois kind of a fund,” said Rep. Chad Hays, a Caitlin Republican.
Quinn appointed Kym Hubbard, who will serve as the commission’s chair, and Miguel Del Valle, who will serve as a member of the commission. Hubbard is also the treasurer and chief investment officer of Ernst &; Young, and Del Valle, a former state senator and former Chicago city clerk, was the chair of the Illinois P-20 Education Council.
Durkin said the appointments are a positive step but that more needs to be done to ensure that College Illinois is properly administered. He plans to introduce legislation before the end of the month that would call for the program to be placed under the control of the comptroller’s office.
For more on lawmaker’s concerns about the College Illinois Program, see Illinois Issues, May 2011.
Senate Dems' map could send Republicans packing
By Jamey Dunn with Lauren N. Johnson contributing
Illinois Senate Democrats released a proposed map of legislative districts today that would likely leave several Senate Republicans weighing their options and considering renting moving vans in the near future.
Since Democrats control both chambers of the legislature and the governor’s office, they could pass a new legislative plan without the backing of a single Republican, assuming both chambers can agree and Gov. Pat Quinn signs off on the end product before the end of May. The legislature technically has until the end of June to pass a bill, but after May 31, Democrats would need some Republican votes for the map to go into effect before June 2012.
It is this unmitigated power to draw the map that has left many Republicans with a bitter taste in their mouths about the process. Sen. Dale Righter, the top Republican member of the Senate Redistricting Map Committee, said that he and his party had no more input in the map released today than any other citizen. “I don’t know whether they’re smoking in there or not, but clearly, they’re in a closed-door room drawing the lines. And I would suggest to you that if you didn’t know who drew these lines and you just looked at the map, it wouldn’t take you very long to figure out which party had drawn them,” said Righter, a Mattoon Republican.
Righter said this map, along with other from the recent past, illustrate the need for a change to the process. Republicans and Democrats proposed competing revamps of the redistricting process last spring. Neither plan was approved by the legislature. “I think the evidence of the last three remaps certainly demonstrates that that’s what happens when you leave the process in the hands of incumbent legislators — I don’t care what party. When you leave it in the hands of incumbent legislators, the lines are going to be driven politically, and I think that’s what you’ve seen again here,” he said.
However, Senate President John Cullerton said that the map was not drafted with an eye for putting incumbent Republicans out of a job. “We’re flowing the voting rights act. We’re following the Illinois voting rights act as well as the federal voting rights act. And we’re complying with the people that testified [at redistricting hearings held throughout the state] in favor of certain configurations,” Cullerton said. “It follows the law, and it’s fair.”
Under the proposal, some pairs of Republican incumbent senators would live in the same legislative districts — meaning that if they wanted to run in the districts where they currently reside, incumbents would have to battle it out in a primary. Perhaps the most notable paring up in a district is Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno from Lemont and Republican freshman Sen. Ron Sandack from Downers Grove. They would share the 41st Senate District.
“I’m just trying to evaluate it,” Radogno said. “I’m not alarmed by it. I’ve been in this situation before. Other members have as well. Everyone looks at all the opportunities…so just looking at where peoples’ houses are on the map doesn’t represent every opportunity that they might have.”
Downstate Illinois lost population, so the result was a proposal with larger districts. And many downstate Republicans found they would be left out of their current districts if the Senate Democrats' map is approved. “Most of the southern Illinois Republicans were drawn out of their district. … And this has happened before, but that doesn’t make it right. This I think proves that the way we draw a map is corrupt, political and kind of despicable, really. … This was strictly political, and it always has been, and to claim that it is not is just not being honest,” said Sen. David Luechtefeld, a Republican from Okawville who would be shifted from his district under the proposed map.
“Five out of six southern Illinois Republicans were drawn out of their map, strictly drawn out of their district. That just didn’t happen by accident,” he added.
Kent Redfield, an emeritus political science professor at the University of Illinois Springfield, said the shrinking downstate population coupled with a political shift toward Republicans in the region led Democrats to draw some “creative” districts to try to hold onto their numbers. He pointed to the Democrats' proposal to split Sangamon County, where Springfield is located, into three Senate districts. The county currently has one state senator. To create the three districts, map drafters pulled in populations from the Decatur and Bloomington areas. “Those kinds of things really highlight how unimportant communities of interest — cities and counties — really are in terms of crafting a map.” Redfield said that under the plan, some Springfield residents could potentially have a senator from Decatur or Bloomington who they may not believe shares their community’s interests. “It makes sense from a partisan standpoint, but most citizens don’t think of it that way. … It’s not particularly healthy if we want people to understand politics and have a sense of community,” he said.
Incumbents who find themselves mapped out of their current districts do have options. In the 2012 general election — when all seats in the General Assembly are up for grabs — they can run in any new district that contains any portion of their old district without actually living there. A lawmaker elected for a two-year term to represent a district that he or she does not live in would have about six months to move into that district to be eligible for reelection. Those elected for four-year terms would have about 30 months to relocate.
Redfield said that in some cases, the party in power might put two minority party incumbents in the same district simply to cause tension and force them to chose between relocating or potentially losing their seats. “There will probably be instances where they’ve drawn them in ways — it’s safe districts, but some Republicans have to move, even though there is no advantage to Democrats. It’s just screwing around with your opponents.”
“Republicans would have done the same thing as the Democrats” if they controlled the legislature, he added.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle said they saw the map released today as a jumping off point, and they expect some changes. Cullerton said he encourages those unhappy with the map to submit amendments with potential changes. “We have at least a week before we vote on it, so people can offer amendments if they want.” The Senate Redistricting Committee has a hearing scheduled on Saturday in Chicago and another on Tuesday in Springfield.
The Senate Democrats' map did not include House districts. House Democrats are expected to release their proposed map tomorrow.
Christopher Mooney, a political studies professor with the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois, explained: “The House districts are nested in the Senate districts, and that means that they basically cut the Senate districts in half population wise. And that will be another shock to the system around here.”
For some localized takes on the Senate Democrats' proposal see:
The State Journal-Register
Belleville News-Democrat
Herald & Review
Illinois Senate Democrats released a proposed map of legislative districts today that would likely leave several Senate Republicans weighing their options and considering renting moving vans in the near future.
Since Democrats control both chambers of the legislature and the governor’s office, they could pass a new legislative plan without the backing of a single Republican, assuming both chambers can agree and Gov. Pat Quinn signs off on the end product before the end of May. The legislature technically has until the end of June to pass a bill, but after May 31, Democrats would need some Republican votes for the map to go into effect before June 2012.
It is this unmitigated power to draw the map that has left many Republicans with a bitter taste in their mouths about the process. Sen. Dale Righter, the top Republican member of the Senate Redistricting Map Committee, said that he and his party had no more input in the map released today than any other citizen. “I don’t know whether they’re smoking in there or not, but clearly, they’re in a closed-door room drawing the lines. And I would suggest to you that if you didn’t know who drew these lines and you just looked at the map, it wouldn’t take you very long to figure out which party had drawn them,” said Righter, a Mattoon Republican.
Righter said this map, along with other from the recent past, illustrate the need for a change to the process. Republicans and Democrats proposed competing revamps of the redistricting process last spring. Neither plan was approved by the legislature. “I think the evidence of the last three remaps certainly demonstrates that that’s what happens when you leave the process in the hands of incumbent legislators — I don’t care what party. When you leave it in the hands of incumbent legislators, the lines are going to be driven politically, and I think that’s what you’ve seen again here,” he said.
However, Senate President John Cullerton said that the map was not drafted with an eye for putting incumbent Republicans out of a job. “We’re flowing the voting rights act. We’re following the Illinois voting rights act as well as the federal voting rights act. And we’re complying with the people that testified [at redistricting hearings held throughout the state] in favor of certain configurations,” Cullerton said. “It follows the law, and it’s fair.”
Under the proposal, some pairs of Republican incumbent senators would live in the same legislative districts — meaning that if they wanted to run in the districts where they currently reside, incumbents would have to battle it out in a primary. Perhaps the most notable paring up in a district is Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno from Lemont and Republican freshman Sen. Ron Sandack from Downers Grove. They would share the 41st Senate District.
“I’m just trying to evaluate it,” Radogno said. “I’m not alarmed by it. I’ve been in this situation before. Other members have as well. Everyone looks at all the opportunities…so just looking at where peoples’ houses are on the map doesn’t represent every opportunity that they might have.”
Downstate Illinois lost population, so the result was a proposal with larger districts. And many downstate Republicans found they would be left out of their current districts if the Senate Democrats' map is approved. “Most of the southern Illinois Republicans were drawn out of their district. … And this has happened before, but that doesn’t make it right. This I think proves that the way we draw a map is corrupt, political and kind of despicable, really. … This was strictly political, and it always has been, and to claim that it is not is just not being honest,” said Sen. David Luechtefeld, a Republican from Okawville who would be shifted from his district under the proposed map.
“Five out of six southern Illinois Republicans were drawn out of their map, strictly drawn out of their district. That just didn’t happen by accident,” he added.
Kent Redfield, an emeritus political science professor at the University of Illinois Springfield, said the shrinking downstate population coupled with a political shift toward Republicans in the region led Democrats to draw some “creative” districts to try to hold onto their numbers. He pointed to the Democrats' proposal to split Sangamon County, where Springfield is located, into three Senate districts. The county currently has one state senator. To create the three districts, map drafters pulled in populations from the Decatur and Bloomington areas. “Those kinds of things really highlight how unimportant communities of interest — cities and counties — really are in terms of crafting a map.” Redfield said that under the plan, some Springfield residents could potentially have a senator from Decatur or Bloomington who they may not believe shares their community’s interests. “It makes sense from a partisan standpoint, but most citizens don’t think of it that way. … It’s not particularly healthy if we want people to understand politics and have a sense of community,” he said.
Incumbents who find themselves mapped out of their current districts do have options. In the 2012 general election — when all seats in the General Assembly are up for grabs — they can run in any new district that contains any portion of their old district without actually living there. A lawmaker elected for a two-year term to represent a district that he or she does not live in would have about six months to move into that district to be eligible for reelection. Those elected for four-year terms would have about 30 months to relocate.
Redfield said that in some cases, the party in power might put two minority party incumbents in the same district simply to cause tension and force them to chose between relocating or potentially losing their seats. “There will probably be instances where they’ve drawn them in ways — it’s safe districts, but some Republicans have to move, even though there is no advantage to Democrats. It’s just screwing around with your opponents.”
“Republicans would have done the same thing as the Democrats” if they controlled the legislature, he added.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle said they saw the map released today as a jumping off point, and they expect some changes. Cullerton said he encourages those unhappy with the map to submit amendments with potential changes. “We have at least a week before we vote on it, so people can offer amendments if they want.” The Senate Redistricting Committee has a hearing scheduled on Saturday in Chicago and another on Tuesday in Springfield.
The Senate Democrats' map did not include House districts. House Democrats are expected to release their proposed map tomorrow.
Christopher Mooney, a political studies professor with the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois, explained: “The House districts are nested in the Senate districts, and that means that they basically cut the Senate districts in half population wise. And that will be another shock to the system around here.”
For some localized takes on the Senate Democrats' proposal see:
The State Journal-Register
Belleville News-Democrat
Herald & Review
Senate Democrats release a legislative map
The Senate Democrats have released their proposed map for Illinois legislative districts. The map is available on the Democrats’ website as pdf files, or a more interactive version can be found on Google Earth. (A link to download Google Earth is available on the website.)
Two hearings are scheduled for public feedback. One will be in Chicago at noon on Saturday at the Michael A. Bilandic Building in committee room C-600, and another will be in Springfield at 9 a.m. Tuesday at the Statehouse in committee room 114. Senate Democrats plan to have live feeds of the hearings on their website.
“Today’s release is part of the aggressive effort we’ve taken to engage the public in the redistricting process. Because of the advances and availability of web-based technology, anyone with an Internet connection can view this proposal,” Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, chairman of the Senate Redistricting Committee, said in a prepared statement.
Illinois House Democrats are working on a plan for the legislative districts for their chamber. Their map proposal has not been released. We will have more on the Senate Democrats' proposed map later today.
Two hearings are scheduled for public feedback. One will be in Chicago at noon on Saturday at the Michael A. Bilandic Building in committee room C-600, and another will be in Springfield at 9 a.m. Tuesday at the Statehouse in committee room 114. Senate Democrats plan to have live feeds of the hearings on their website.
“Today’s release is part of the aggressive effort we’ve taken to engage the public in the redistricting process. Because of the advances and availability of web-based technology, anyone with an Internet connection can view this proposal,” Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, chairman of the Senate Redistricting Committee, said in a prepared statement.
Illinois House Democrats are working on a plan for the legislative districts for their chamber. Their map proposal has not been released. We will have more on the Senate Democrats' proposed map later today.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Mayors say proposed cuts could be dangerous
By Jamey Dunn
Neighborhoods across the state may be less safe if a budget idea being discussed by lawmakers is approved, local officials say.
Mayors and village presidents came to the Illinois Statehouse today to lobby against any potential cuts to the share of tax dollars the state gives to local governments, saying that cuts would result in layoffs of municipal employees — including police officers and fire fighters. The money in question comes from the Local Government Distributive Fund, which is fed by revenues from state sales and income taxes among other state taxes. In Fiscal Year 2010, the state filtered about $1.2 billion back to municipal governments through the fund.
“All they’re doing is passing along their problems to all of us that operate cities of various size and capacities. And these monies are generated by our folks that live there, work there and do everything else in our communities,” said John Spring, mayor of the western Illinois city of Quincy.
Gov. Pat Quinn has proposed delaying payments to local governments until lawmakers approve some form of borrowing to pay off the state’s backlog of overdue bills from vendors, schools and social services providers. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have called for a $300 million cut to the revenues the state shares with the municipalities. A spokesperson for Quinn said he would not support cuts to the fund. “Our strong preference is to restructure our debt. … What we want to do is to pay down our overdue bills now,” said Brie Callahan, a spokeswoman for Quinn. Callahan said that Quinn is weighing several plans to accomplish that, and suspending payments to local governments is one of them. She added that the state is currently three to four months behind on such payments.
Mayors said they have already cut waste and nonessential items, such as weekly grass trimming at local parks. They have also eliminated positions and laid off employees, including police officers. They said further cuts or delays could threaten public safety.
Pat Devaney, president of the Associated Firefighters of Illinois, said firefighters’ responsibilities have grown as their numbers are being cut. “We’re not only putting out fires. Our members are responding to hazardous materials incidents. They’re doing technical rescues, and they’re providing emergency medical care for the sick and injured in our communities,” he said.“We’ve experienced increased response times. We’ve had to close stations. We’ve had to close fire companies, and we’re not getting to people who really need us in time.”
Ted Street, president of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, said the shrinking number of police officers throughout the state not only endangers citizens but makes the jobs of those remaining more treacherous. “Some three years ago, I represented 35,000 law enforcement officers in the state of Illinois. Today, I represent 33,000. In the city of Chicago alone, there’s 1,000 less patrolmen patrolling the streets of Chicago. In the state of Illinois, there’s 400 less state troopers patrolling the highways and county roads of this state.”
He added: “We’re burying more policeman every year. … We’re being asked to operate one-man cars in high-crime areas. We’re being tasked to do more with less, and we’re losing officers.”
Gerald Bennett, mayor of the northern Illinois city of Palos Hills, described Quinn’s plan as an attempt to “blackmail” mayors to get them to pressure their local legislators into borrowing. “It is not their money,” said Bennett. “It’s their budget. They need to balance that budget. And we’re not a vendor. We’re not a social program. We are the ones [who need] to receive 10 percent of that local income tax back to our local taxpayers.”
Kent Redfield an emeritus political science professor at the University of Illinois Springfield, said the move is similar to state officials putting pressure on other groups, such as social service providers or university presidents, through cuts either proposed or real. Representative of those groups, in turn, lobby their lawmakers for policy changes that would end the cuts. “Sometimes it’s more subtle than others, but that’s what’s going on.”
He said since most lawmakers have local political and party ties, local officials are not used to being the group that is being leaned on, either for cuts or to accomplish policy goals. “They’re used to these things not even being on the table. … It puts them in a situation that they’re not used to because generally they have an awful lot of clout down here.”
However, Redfield said if lawmaker did cut the revenue the state shares with local government, they would be pushing their budget woes down the line. “It’s cost shifting. You’re either going to cut programs, or you’re going to raise taxes at the local level.”
Neighborhoods across the state may be less safe if a budget idea being discussed by lawmakers is approved, local officials say.
Mayors and village presidents came to the Illinois Statehouse today to lobby against any potential cuts to the share of tax dollars the state gives to local governments, saying that cuts would result in layoffs of municipal employees — including police officers and fire fighters. The money in question comes from the Local Government Distributive Fund, which is fed by revenues from state sales and income taxes among other state taxes. In Fiscal Year 2010, the state filtered about $1.2 billion back to municipal governments through the fund.
“All they’re doing is passing along their problems to all of us that operate cities of various size and capacities. And these monies are generated by our folks that live there, work there and do everything else in our communities,” said John Spring, mayor of the western Illinois city of Quincy.
Gov. Pat Quinn has proposed delaying payments to local governments until lawmakers approve some form of borrowing to pay off the state’s backlog of overdue bills from vendors, schools and social services providers. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have called for a $300 million cut to the revenues the state shares with the municipalities. A spokesperson for Quinn said he would not support cuts to the fund. “Our strong preference is to restructure our debt. … What we want to do is to pay down our overdue bills now,” said Brie Callahan, a spokeswoman for Quinn. Callahan said that Quinn is weighing several plans to accomplish that, and suspending payments to local governments is one of them. She added that the state is currently three to four months behind on such payments.
Mayors said they have already cut waste and nonessential items, such as weekly grass trimming at local parks. They have also eliminated positions and laid off employees, including police officers. They said further cuts or delays could threaten public safety.
Pat Devaney, president of the Associated Firefighters of Illinois, said firefighters’ responsibilities have grown as their numbers are being cut. “We’re not only putting out fires. Our members are responding to hazardous materials incidents. They’re doing technical rescues, and they’re providing emergency medical care for the sick and injured in our communities,” he said.“We’ve experienced increased response times. We’ve had to close stations. We’ve had to close fire companies, and we’re not getting to people who really need us in time.”
Ted Street, president of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, said the shrinking number of police officers throughout the state not only endangers citizens but makes the jobs of those remaining more treacherous. “Some three years ago, I represented 35,000 law enforcement officers in the state of Illinois. Today, I represent 33,000. In the city of Chicago alone, there’s 1,000 less patrolmen patrolling the streets of Chicago. In the state of Illinois, there’s 400 less state troopers patrolling the highways and county roads of this state.”
He added: “We’re burying more policeman every year. … We’re being asked to operate one-man cars in high-crime areas. We’re being tasked to do more with less, and we’re losing officers.”
Gerald Bennett, mayor of the northern Illinois city of Palos Hills, described Quinn’s plan as an attempt to “blackmail” mayors to get them to pressure their local legislators into borrowing. “It is not their money,” said Bennett. “It’s their budget. They need to balance that budget. And we’re not a vendor. We’re not a social program. We are the ones [who need] to receive 10 percent of that local income tax back to our local taxpayers.”
Kent Redfield an emeritus political science professor at the University of Illinois Springfield, said the move is similar to state officials putting pressure on other groups, such as social service providers or university presidents, through cuts either proposed or real. Representative of those groups, in turn, lobby their lawmakers for policy changes that would end the cuts. “Sometimes it’s more subtle than others, but that’s what’s going on.”
He said since most lawmakers have local political and party ties, local officials are not used to being the group that is being leaned on, either for cuts or to accomplish policy goals. “They’re used to these things not even being on the table. … It puts them in a situation that they’re not used to because generally they have an awful lot of clout down here.”
However, Redfield said if lawmaker did cut the revenue the state shares with local government, they would be pushing their budget woes down the line. “It’s cost shifting. You’re either going to cut programs, or you’re going to raise taxes at the local level.”
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Legislators vote to ban free tuition for their families
By Lauren N. Johnson
The Illinois Senate sent a bill to Gov. Pat Quinn today that would bar lawmakers from awarding college tuition waivers to family members. However, some supporters say the measure only serves to help clean up a program that ultimately should be eliminated.
House Bill 1353, sponsored by Rep. Robert Pritchard, a Hinckley Republican, would exclude legislators’ relatives, including relatives by marriage, from eligibility to win General Assembly scholarships. The bill passed in the Senate with no opposition today after being approved by the House in April.
Sen. Kirk Dillard, a Hinsdale Republican who sponsored the measure, said, “While many of us no longer give legislative scholarships, we still need to make the law clean for those who do so.
The General Assembly scholarships program, which cost state universities $13.9 million in fiscal year 2010, according to the Illinois Board of Higher Education, is the second most expensive waiver program in which colleges are required to participate. Veterans’ grants and scholarships are the most expensive programs. Under the law, each legislator can dole out four-year tuition waivers for the University of Illinois and one other state school to students in their district. The scholarships are sometimes split among several students, such as awarding a one-year waivers to each of four applicants.
Dillard said the bill serves as a protection against nepotism that most legislators thought was already in place. “I was surprised that legislators were not prohibited from giving scholarships to relatives. … This puts one more safeguard into a law which I think should be abolished,” Dillard said.
Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno of Lemont and Dillard introduced bills in past legislative sessions to eliminate what Dillard called an “archaic” tuition waiver system.
Patty Schuh, Radogno's spokeswoman, said the program is an unfunded mandate that requires state public universities and colleges to absorb the costs of students who receive the waivers and puts a burden on other students who attend the school and pay their tuition in full. “It’s a cost-shifting mechanism that its time has come to be ended,” Schuh said.
The bill awaits a decision from Quinn. When lawmakers passed legislation intended to reform their scholarship program last spring, Quinn sent the bill back to them, saying it did not go far enough. “Our colleges and universities face millions of dollars of unpaid bills. At a time when students are being deprived basic assistance and we are asking our institutions of higher learning to operate with scarce resources, I cannot affix my signature to a measure that allows student assistance to be based on anything other than need and merit,” he said in his veto message. Legislators failed to revisit the issue during last year's fall veto session, so the bill died.
The Illinois Senate sent a bill to Gov. Pat Quinn today that would bar lawmakers from awarding college tuition waivers to family members. However, some supporters say the measure only serves to help clean up a program that ultimately should be eliminated.
House Bill 1353, sponsored by Rep. Robert Pritchard, a Hinckley Republican, would exclude legislators’ relatives, including relatives by marriage, from eligibility to win General Assembly scholarships. The bill passed in the Senate with no opposition today after being approved by the House in April.
Sen. Kirk Dillard, a Hinsdale Republican who sponsored the measure, said, “While many of us no longer give legislative scholarships, we still need to make the law clean for those who do so.
The General Assembly scholarships program, which cost state universities $13.9 million in fiscal year 2010, according to the Illinois Board of Higher Education, is the second most expensive waiver program in which colleges are required to participate. Veterans’ grants and scholarships are the most expensive programs. Under the law, each legislator can dole out four-year tuition waivers for the University of Illinois and one other state school to students in their district. The scholarships are sometimes split among several students, such as awarding a one-year waivers to each of four applicants.
Dillard said the bill serves as a protection against nepotism that most legislators thought was already in place. “I was surprised that legislators were not prohibited from giving scholarships to relatives. … This puts one more safeguard into a law which I think should be abolished,” Dillard said.
Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno of Lemont and Dillard introduced bills in past legislative sessions to eliminate what Dillard called an “archaic” tuition waiver system.
Patty Schuh, Radogno's spokeswoman, said the program is an unfunded mandate that requires state public universities and colleges to absorb the costs of students who receive the waivers and puts a burden on other students who attend the school and pay their tuition in full. “It’s a cost-shifting mechanism that its time has come to be ended,” Schuh said.
The bill awaits a decision from Quinn. When lawmakers passed legislation intended to reform their scholarship program last spring, Quinn sent the bill back to them, saying it did not go far enough. “Our colleges and universities face millions of dollars of unpaid bills. At a time when students are being deprived basic assistance and we are asking our institutions of higher learning to operate with scarce resources, I cannot affix my signature to a measure that allows student assistance to be based on anything other than need and merit,” he said in his veto message. Legislators failed to revisit the issue during last year's fall veto session, so the bill died.
Construction bill gets day in court
By Jamey Dunn
As lawmakers mulled over the pressing issues of this legislative session, such as workers’ compensation reform and changes to the state employee pension system, the fate of what many call one of the biggest legislative victories in recent years was being debated just across the street.
The Illinois Supreme Court heard arguments today in Wirtz v. Quinn, a case that will decide the future of the state’s $31 billion capital construction program, signed into law in 2009.
An appellate court stuck down the legislation in January on the basis of the “single subject rule” of the Illinois Constitution. The rule requires that bills be confined to one subject to avoid log rolling — tying an unpopular issue to a popular one in an attempt to force its passage.
Rockwell Wirtz, owner of the Chicago Blackhawks hockey team and Wirtz Beverage, a liquor distribution company, filed the lawsuit against the state in the summer of 2009. At the time, Wirtz said he took issue with the way the plan was rushed through the legislature. Wirtz also had a problem with the increased taxes on beer, wine and spirits that helped to fund the plan, saying that the increases on beverages with higher alcohol contents were unfairly larger than the increase on beer.
Assistant Attorney General Richard Huszagh argued on behalf of the state today that the legislation all fits under a single subject: “the capital program.” He said that the revenue sources, the spending and all other provisions in the bills are needed to make the plan work. “Chicago architect Dan Burnham famously once said, ‘Make no little plans.’ The plaintiffs' approach to the single subject clause appears to be the opposite, that the General Assembly can only make little plans,” he told justices.
Sam Vinson, Wirtz’s lawyer, said the fact that the law diverts into general spending some of the money brought in from the increased taxes meant to fund capital projects is one many details in the law that are not all about construction.
However, Huszagh said the provision was needed after lawmakers put a stop to diversions from the road fund, which is meant to pay for road construction projects but has been tapped for operating costs in recent years. “If they’re going to try and secure these revenue sources for the road fund by terminating the diversions elsewhere, those operations elsewhere didn’t stop. So they needed to find some other way of covering that.”
Vinson said that since the spending bill would not take effect unless the legislature passed and the governor approved the controversial revenue bill — which contained sales tax increases on a number of items, as well as a plan to legalize video poker in bars and restaurants throughout the state — lawmakers who wanted construction in their districts had no choice but to vote for both. “It put the governor in a position where he essentially was stripped of his veto powers,” Vinson said before the court. “If you’re in a position where the only way you can get your project is to vote for the package, that defines successful log rolling.”
The state argued that the two bills go hand in hand. “It’s common sense. You can’t spend the money unless you have it. … The appropriations weren’t going to go anywhere if the legislature didn’t pass the revenues,” Huszagh said. Some lawmakers did vote for the spending bill while casting a vote against the revenue sources. While they were roundly criticized by those who supported both parts of the plan, their districts’ projects were not written out of the spending. Huszagh also said the higher liquor tax does fulfill the goal of the original taxing law, which was to get people to drink less alcohol. “Higher per-drink taxes at the wholesale level on stronger alcoholic beverages promotes the stated goal in the liquor control act of temperance. … This is within the legitimate realm of legislative judgment.”
Vinson argued that lawmakers could easily rework the legislation to ensure that the bills are fair and unconstitutional and asked the court not to allow the legislature to continue to circumvent proper procedure out of fear of killing a jobs program. “The most disastrous thing is not that a particular program be delayed, and it can certainly be recovered by the legislature repassing the thing with curative legislation overnight. … Probably if you were to rule from the bench today on these bills, you’d see legislation passed by Memorial Day that solved most of these problems.”
He added: “Convenience isn’t the best way to run a legislature or to run government or to run a society. Constitutions are.”
The Supreme Court is expected to release opinions on May 19, June 3 and June 16 but has given no indication when it would rule on the Wirtz case.
As lawmakers mulled over the pressing issues of this legislative session, such as workers’ compensation reform and changes to the state employee pension system, the fate of what many call one of the biggest legislative victories in recent years was being debated just across the street.
The Illinois Supreme Court heard arguments today in Wirtz v. Quinn, a case that will decide the future of the state’s $31 billion capital construction program, signed into law in 2009.
An appellate court stuck down the legislation in January on the basis of the “single subject rule” of the Illinois Constitution. The rule requires that bills be confined to one subject to avoid log rolling — tying an unpopular issue to a popular one in an attempt to force its passage.
Rockwell Wirtz, owner of the Chicago Blackhawks hockey team and Wirtz Beverage, a liquor distribution company, filed the lawsuit against the state in the summer of 2009. At the time, Wirtz said he took issue with the way the plan was rushed through the legislature. Wirtz also had a problem with the increased taxes on beer, wine and spirits that helped to fund the plan, saying that the increases on beverages with higher alcohol contents were unfairly larger than the increase on beer.
Assistant Attorney General Richard Huszagh argued on behalf of the state today that the legislation all fits under a single subject: “the capital program.” He said that the revenue sources, the spending and all other provisions in the bills are needed to make the plan work. “Chicago architect Dan Burnham famously once said, ‘Make no little plans.’ The plaintiffs' approach to the single subject clause appears to be the opposite, that the General Assembly can only make little plans,” he told justices.
Sam Vinson, Wirtz’s lawyer, said the fact that the law diverts into general spending some of the money brought in from the increased taxes meant to fund capital projects is one many details in the law that are not all about construction.
However, Huszagh said the provision was needed after lawmakers put a stop to diversions from the road fund, which is meant to pay for road construction projects but has been tapped for operating costs in recent years. “If they’re going to try and secure these revenue sources for the road fund by terminating the diversions elsewhere, those operations elsewhere didn’t stop. So they needed to find some other way of covering that.”
Vinson said that since the spending bill would not take effect unless the legislature passed and the governor approved the controversial revenue bill — which contained sales tax increases on a number of items, as well as a plan to legalize video poker in bars and restaurants throughout the state — lawmakers who wanted construction in their districts had no choice but to vote for both. “It put the governor in a position where he essentially was stripped of his veto powers,” Vinson said before the court. “If you’re in a position where the only way you can get your project is to vote for the package, that defines successful log rolling.”
The state argued that the two bills go hand in hand. “It’s common sense. You can’t spend the money unless you have it. … The appropriations weren’t going to go anywhere if the legislature didn’t pass the revenues,” Huszagh said. Some lawmakers did vote for the spending bill while casting a vote against the revenue sources. While they were roundly criticized by those who supported both parts of the plan, their districts’ projects were not written out of the spending. Huszagh also said the higher liquor tax does fulfill the goal of the original taxing law, which was to get people to drink less alcohol. “Higher per-drink taxes at the wholesale level on stronger alcoholic beverages promotes the stated goal in the liquor control act of temperance. … This is within the legitimate realm of legislative judgment.”
Vinson argued that lawmakers could easily rework the legislation to ensure that the bills are fair and unconstitutional and asked the court not to allow the legislature to continue to circumvent proper procedure out of fear of killing a jobs program. “The most disastrous thing is not that a particular program be delayed, and it can certainly be recovered by the legislature repassing the thing with curative legislation overnight. … Probably if you were to rule from the bench today on these bills, you’d see legislation passed by Memorial Day that solved most of these problems.”
He added: “Convenience isn’t the best way to run a legislature or to run government or to run a society. Constitutions are.”
The Supreme Court is expected to release opinions on May 19, June 3 and June 16 but has given no indication when it would rule on the Wirtz case.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Senate and House pass competing budgets
By Jamey Dunn
Both the Illinois Senate and House have passed the bulk of their budget bills, but the work to complete the state budget is far from over.
The Senate’s budget contains about $1 billion more spending then the House’s version. The Senate calls for about $63 million more spending on education, $885 million more on human services and $21 million more on public safety, along with more spending on economic development and other government services.
The discrepancy in the budgets started early in the process, when each chamber chose to work from different revenue estimates for Fiscal Year 2012. The Senate based its larger number on estimates from the legislature’s Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability. The House took what members described as a “conservative” estimate that would push legislators to make cuts.
However, members of House budgeting committees for human services and education — the two committees that took the most time settling on cuts — say they are hoping for additional revenue to come in to lessen cuts.
Both the Senate and House human services plans rely on reducing the rate that health care providers are paid for treating Medicaid patients, as well as delaying payments to providers.
Howard Peters, executive vice president of policy and advocacy for the Illinois Hospital Association, told the house budgeting committee that his members favored a delay in payments over a cut in rates. “We know that extending the payment cycle is not desirable. It’s not desirable for you. It’s not desirable for our members. But it is a far better solution. A far better solution than taking an inadequate Medicaid payment and making it even more inadequate,” Peters said. “Given the choices that you may have before you, we would encourage you to think extending the payment cycle rather than cutting the rates across the board. Much greater harm is done by cutting the rates.”
Hospitals and some other health care providers have been consistently getting Medicaid payments on a 30-day cycle because it meant a larger federal Medicaid match for the state. But the elevated match ends before the next fiscal year, so legislators will have less financial incentive to pay hospitals quickly.
Putting off Medicaid payments would allow the state to cut costs out of the Fiscal Year 2012 budget by pushing them into FY 2013. However some lawmakers have warned that delaying the payments along with a loss in federal dollars could mean trouble on the horizon for Medicaid budget in FY 2013. Chicago Democratic Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, who chairs the House Human Services Appropriations Committee, said the overall Medicaid budget — which is spread out over several state agencies — is slated to lose $765 million in federal stimulus funding in FY 2012.
“In FY 13, when we come look at our Medicaid numbers, we’re all going to faint. We’re all going to faint,” she said.
Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican, warned that the state must do more to slow down growing Medicaid costs. “There are no real fundamental changes to the Medicaid program, which was expanded to the breaking point over the last decade. That keeps us on the path of spending we can’t afford. This budget does nothing to take us off that course and, again. is another brick in the wall of making that [recent state income] tax increase permanent.”
The two legislative chambers’ approaches to education cuts differ. The House calls for a 4 percent cut to general state aid to schools. Members of the House Education Appropriations committee say they want to backload the reduction so it comes at the end of FY 2012, in the hopes that more revenue could come in and soften the blow. The Senate budget would not cut general aid but instead reduce mandated categorical grants that go toward specific programs such as special education.
Senate Republicans were critical of this move because the Senate’s education spending plan also calls for new programs to address overcrowded classrooms and high school dropout rates. “I think it shows a very poor decision making approach when we are trying to share or equally distribute the pain in our reductions and yet we still find money for new programs regardless of what the value of those new programs are. I think it sends a very poor message,” Said Sen. Pamela Althoff, a McHenry Republican.
Senate Republicans did not support the budget passed in their chamber today because they say it spends too much and would not allow the recent tax increase to be phased out, as the law is written. They also took issue with the fact that the Senate did not take committee votes on most of its budget bills.
Senate Democrats ripped into Republicans for not presenting any on their own legislation. “If you don’t have any suggestions, then just stop whining. Stop talking about a process that you could have very well participated in, that you chose not to,” Maywood Democratic Sen. Kimberly Lightford said to Republicans during floor debate.
House Speaker Michael Madigan congratulated his members at the close of today’s legislative session for taking the budgeting process into their own hands and out of legislative leaders’ meetings, where a handful of people would make most of the decisions. “Everybody should appreciate the historic significance of this event. Since 1991, the Illinois legislature has basically engaged in preparing a one-bill budget. Prior to 1991, the appropriations process was very similar to what we’ve just done. … But starting in June of 1991, for a variety of reasons, we went to a one-bill budget — which has brought on a lot of criticism and complaint that the governor and the four [legislative] leaders would gather in the governor’s office and make all the decisions on budget making,” Madigan said.
He added: “And so what we’ve done this year, especially in the House, is to completely change that process. Take it out of the governor’s office, take it out of the hands of the governor and the leaders.”
Madigan told reporters that he does not think the House’s budget will be the spending plan that Gov. Pat Quinn signs into law. He said there is still work to do because the House, Senate and Quinn still have to negotiate and come to a final agreement. “We’re not sending any ultimatums by the adoption of this budget today. We recognize it’s a two chamber legislature.”
Both the Illinois Senate and House have passed the bulk of their budget bills, but the work to complete the state budget is far from over.
The Senate’s budget contains about $1 billion more spending then the House’s version. The Senate calls for about $63 million more spending on education, $885 million more on human services and $21 million more on public safety, along with more spending on economic development and other government services.
The discrepancy in the budgets started early in the process, when each chamber chose to work from different revenue estimates for Fiscal Year 2012. The Senate based its larger number on estimates from the legislature’s Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability. The House took what members described as a “conservative” estimate that would push legislators to make cuts.
However, members of House budgeting committees for human services and education — the two committees that took the most time settling on cuts — say they are hoping for additional revenue to come in to lessen cuts.
Both the Senate and House human services plans rely on reducing the rate that health care providers are paid for treating Medicaid patients, as well as delaying payments to providers.
Howard Peters, executive vice president of policy and advocacy for the Illinois Hospital Association, told the house budgeting committee that his members favored a delay in payments over a cut in rates. “We know that extending the payment cycle is not desirable. It’s not desirable for you. It’s not desirable for our members. But it is a far better solution. A far better solution than taking an inadequate Medicaid payment and making it even more inadequate,” Peters said. “Given the choices that you may have before you, we would encourage you to think extending the payment cycle rather than cutting the rates across the board. Much greater harm is done by cutting the rates.”
Hospitals and some other health care providers have been consistently getting Medicaid payments on a 30-day cycle because it meant a larger federal Medicaid match for the state. But the elevated match ends before the next fiscal year, so legislators will have less financial incentive to pay hospitals quickly.
Putting off Medicaid payments would allow the state to cut costs out of the Fiscal Year 2012 budget by pushing them into FY 2013. However some lawmakers have warned that delaying the payments along with a loss in federal dollars could mean trouble on the horizon for Medicaid budget in FY 2013. Chicago Democratic Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, who chairs the House Human Services Appropriations Committee, said the overall Medicaid budget — which is spread out over several state agencies — is slated to lose $765 million in federal stimulus funding in FY 2012.
“In FY 13, when we come look at our Medicaid numbers, we’re all going to faint. We’re all going to faint,” she said.
Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican, warned that the state must do more to slow down growing Medicaid costs. “There are no real fundamental changes to the Medicaid program, which was expanded to the breaking point over the last decade. That keeps us on the path of spending we can’t afford. This budget does nothing to take us off that course and, again. is another brick in the wall of making that [recent state income] tax increase permanent.”
The two legislative chambers’ approaches to education cuts differ. The House calls for a 4 percent cut to general state aid to schools. Members of the House Education Appropriations committee say they want to backload the reduction so it comes at the end of FY 2012, in the hopes that more revenue could come in and soften the blow. The Senate budget would not cut general aid but instead reduce mandated categorical grants that go toward specific programs such as special education.
Senate Republicans were critical of this move because the Senate’s education spending plan also calls for new programs to address overcrowded classrooms and high school dropout rates. “I think it shows a very poor decision making approach when we are trying to share or equally distribute the pain in our reductions and yet we still find money for new programs regardless of what the value of those new programs are. I think it sends a very poor message,” Said Sen. Pamela Althoff, a McHenry Republican.
Senate Republicans did not support the budget passed in their chamber today because they say it spends too much and would not allow the recent tax increase to be phased out, as the law is written. They also took issue with the fact that the Senate did not take committee votes on most of its budget bills.
Senate Democrats ripped into Republicans for not presenting any on their own legislation. “If you don’t have any suggestions, then just stop whining. Stop talking about a process that you could have very well participated in, that you chose not to,” Maywood Democratic Sen. Kimberly Lightford said to Republicans during floor debate.
House Speaker Michael Madigan congratulated his members at the close of today’s legislative session for taking the budgeting process into their own hands and out of legislative leaders’ meetings, where a handful of people would make most of the decisions. “Everybody should appreciate the historic significance of this event. Since 1991, the Illinois legislature has basically engaged in preparing a one-bill budget. Prior to 1991, the appropriations process was very similar to what we’ve just done. … But starting in June of 1991, for a variety of reasons, we went to a one-bill budget — which has brought on a lot of criticism and complaint that the governor and the four [legislative] leaders would gather in the governor’s office and make all the decisions on budget making,” Madigan said.
He added: “And so what we’ve done this year, especially in the House, is to completely change that process. Take it out of the governor’s office, take it out of the hands of the governor and the leaders.”
Madigan told reporters that he does not think the House’s budget will be the spending plan that Gov. Pat Quinn signs into law. He said there is still work to do because the House, Senate and Quinn still have to negotiate and come to a final agreement. “We’re not sending any ultimatums by the adoption of this budget today. We recognize it’s a two chamber legislature.”
Education reform package headed to Quinn
By Lauren N. Johnson
Illinois teachers may see changes to the tenure process and they way they are hired, fired and laid off as an education reform package makes its way to Gov. Pat Quinn after passing in the House with all but one vote.
After lengthy negotiations among lawmakers, reform groups, unions, teachers, and school administrators, a bill that all parties agreed upon passed in the Illinois Senate. The measure would allow districts to make hiring decisions based on performance evaluations, and seniority would only be used as a tiebreaker. Currently, many schools use a last-in, first-out system when deciding on layoffs. The measure would also require that teachers earn consistently positive performance reviews to receive tenure. The legislation also requires that teachers with at least two unsatisfactory reviews within a seven-year period would have their teaching licenses reviewed by the state.
Although the legislation, sponsored by Sen. Kimberly Lightford, a Maywood Democrat, and Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, a Glynn Ellen Democrat, passed in the Senate with all groups praising the cooperative process that created the plan, the Chicago Teachers Union is now taking issue with details that apply only to its members. The union reportedly opposes a provision that would take away the group’s bargaining rights over the length of the school day and also wants to ensure that certain disagreements could be taken to a mediator under the new process set out in the bill. Chicago Teachers Union officials did not return a call seeking comment. Chicago Democratic Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie said she plans to work with the union and create another bill to address some of its concerns.
Rep. Monique Davis, a Chicago Democrat and the only House member to vote against the bill, said the measure is “discriminatory” to Chicago teachers and lawmakers who represent the area. “I do believe that the Senate sponsor has the same concerns for children that I do, but this bill does not address the concerns of children,” she said during the floor debate.
Davis suggested that voluntary pre-school education for children and research-based dropout prevention programs be among the provisions included in the bill. “The intentions are good, but the results will not change a thing. I’m not going to be a union buster,” she added.
Proponents of the bill say it is one large step toward improving education in the state but that more work focusing on students needs to be done. Jessica Handy, policy director for Stand for Children, a reform group that backed the bill through its passage in both chambers, said, “We’re excited that Senate Bill 7 will create historic education reform to keep the best teachers in the classroom, elevate the teaching profession and build vibrant school communities.”
Illinois teachers may see changes to the tenure process and they way they are hired, fired and laid off as an education reform package makes its way to Gov. Pat Quinn after passing in the House with all but one vote.
After lengthy negotiations among lawmakers, reform groups, unions, teachers, and school administrators, a bill that all parties agreed upon passed in the Illinois Senate. The measure would allow districts to make hiring decisions based on performance evaluations, and seniority would only be used as a tiebreaker. Currently, many schools use a last-in, first-out system when deciding on layoffs. The measure would also require that teachers earn consistently positive performance reviews to receive tenure. The legislation also requires that teachers with at least two unsatisfactory reviews within a seven-year period would have their teaching licenses reviewed by the state.
Although the legislation, sponsored by Sen. Kimberly Lightford, a Maywood Democrat, and Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, a Glynn Ellen Democrat, passed in the Senate with all groups praising the cooperative process that created the plan, the Chicago Teachers Union is now taking issue with details that apply only to its members. The union reportedly opposes a provision that would take away the group’s bargaining rights over the length of the school day and also wants to ensure that certain disagreements could be taken to a mediator under the new process set out in the bill. Chicago Teachers Union officials did not return a call seeking comment. Chicago Democratic Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie said she plans to work with the union and create another bill to address some of its concerns.
Rep. Monique Davis, a Chicago Democrat and the only House member to vote against the bill, said the measure is “discriminatory” to Chicago teachers and lawmakers who represent the area. “I do believe that the Senate sponsor has the same concerns for children that I do, but this bill does not address the concerns of children,” she said during the floor debate.
Davis suggested that voluntary pre-school education for children and research-based dropout prevention programs be among the provisions included in the bill. “The intentions are good, but the results will not change a thing. I’m not going to be a union buster,” she added.
Proponents of the bill say it is one large step toward improving education in the state but that more work focusing on students needs to be done. Jessica Handy, policy director for Stand for Children, a reform group that backed the bill through its passage in both chambers, said, “We’re excited that Senate Bill 7 will create historic education reform to keep the best teachers in the classroom, elevate the teaching profession and build vibrant school communities.”
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
House education budget would delay some cuts
By Jamey Dunn
An Illinois House committee found a compromise on education cuts that members from both parties could back: Put off potential reductions in general state aid until the end of next fiscal year.
The Illinois House committee tasked with producing the chamber's education budget set the goal of trimming Gov. Pat Quinn’s proposed education spending from about $7.6 billion to about $6.9 billion, though members acknowledge that after input from the Senate, the final spending number could be more than their proposal.
The House budget, which the committee approved today, does restore Quinn’s controversial proposed cut to transportation funding and even increases transportation spending levels over the current fiscal year. Rep. Roger Eddy, the minority spokesperson on the committee, noted that transportation funding was cut from $335 million in fiscal year 2010 to $270 million in the current fiscal year. Quinn called for another reduction next fiscal year, which would put transportation spending at $175 million. The House is proposing $295 million to get children to school.
“However, it is after that line item took a rather severe decrease. … So the increase in dollars to that line, while it helps restore some of the funding, does not restore it to the 100 percent funding that was requested or actually recommended by [the Illinois State Board of Education]. … Certainly that will help school districts, ” said Eddy, a Hutsonville Republican who also is a school superintendent.
The plan calls for a 5 percent cut — $17 million — to early childhood education. Hanke Gratteau, vice president of public affairs for the nonprofit Ounce of Prevention Fund, said that if lawmakers’ claims that they want to base the budget this year on proven results are true, then “a program that actually has shown really proven results both for children and for taxpayers” is not the place to cut. She pointed to studies that have found that quality early childhood education can greatly increases students’ chances at later success, as well as decrease their chances of being incarcerated as adults. She also voiced concerns about the thousands of children on preschool waiting lists across the state.
The committee also approved a 4 percent reduction to general state aid to schools. Quinn called for an increase to general state aid of about $260 million, which would bump the foundation level payment that each school receives per student each year to $6,267 from $6,119. The House’s plan would result in about a $152 million reduction from current funding levels, but Eddy said it could be pushed to the end of the next fiscal year. If additional revenues beyond the House’s estimates come in because of an economic recovery or other factors, that money could be used to reduce or stave off the cut.
“If there’s not supplemental funding, at some point or another next year, [Fiscal Year] 12, toward the end of the year, districts would get less money in general state aid,” Eddy said. He said that because general state aid supports several areas of education funding, a reduction to the foundation level would be avoided, and the cut could be spread in an even way so no districts become substantial winners or losers. Eddy said under the plan, any additional money would be split evenly between general aid and transportation funding.
When asked if delaying cuts to education was fair to other areas of government that are also having to make hard choices, , such as human services, Eddy said that there are “real cuts” in his committee's budget. “There’s $177 million less in that budget, in education, than there were in FY 11. So the cuts are real. And there might not be supplemental money, and if there’s not supplemental money. then school districts will receive less [general state aid] money next year.”
Eddy said a possible silver lining for school districts planning their budgets is that the plan doesn’t promise money the state doesn’t have. “We can all take a little bit of solace in the fact that these are real dollars that are likely to be available, as compared to past budgets, where there were appropriation increases and school districts just didn’t see the money.”
An Illinois House committee found a compromise on education cuts that members from both parties could back: Put off potential reductions in general state aid until the end of next fiscal year.
The Illinois House committee tasked with producing the chamber's education budget set the goal of trimming Gov. Pat Quinn’s proposed education spending from about $7.6 billion to about $6.9 billion, though members acknowledge that after input from the Senate, the final spending number could be more than their proposal.
The House budget, which the committee approved today, does restore Quinn’s controversial proposed cut to transportation funding and even increases transportation spending levels over the current fiscal year. Rep. Roger Eddy, the minority spokesperson on the committee, noted that transportation funding was cut from $335 million in fiscal year 2010 to $270 million in the current fiscal year. Quinn called for another reduction next fiscal year, which would put transportation spending at $175 million. The House is proposing $295 million to get children to school.
“However, it is after that line item took a rather severe decrease. … So the increase in dollars to that line, while it helps restore some of the funding, does not restore it to the 100 percent funding that was requested or actually recommended by [the Illinois State Board of Education]. … Certainly that will help school districts, ” said Eddy, a Hutsonville Republican who also is a school superintendent.
The plan calls for a 5 percent cut — $17 million — to early childhood education. Hanke Gratteau, vice president of public affairs for the nonprofit Ounce of Prevention Fund, said that if lawmakers’ claims that they want to base the budget this year on proven results are true, then “a program that actually has shown really proven results both for children and for taxpayers” is not the place to cut. She pointed to studies that have found that quality early childhood education can greatly increases students’ chances at later success, as well as decrease their chances of being incarcerated as adults. She also voiced concerns about the thousands of children on preschool waiting lists across the state.
The committee also approved a 4 percent reduction to general state aid to schools. Quinn called for an increase to general state aid of about $260 million, which would bump the foundation level payment that each school receives per student each year to $6,267 from $6,119. The House’s plan would result in about a $152 million reduction from current funding levels, but Eddy said it could be pushed to the end of the next fiscal year. If additional revenues beyond the House’s estimates come in because of an economic recovery or other factors, that money could be used to reduce or stave off the cut.
“If there’s not supplemental funding, at some point or another next year, [Fiscal Year] 12, toward the end of the year, districts would get less money in general state aid,” Eddy said. He said that because general state aid supports several areas of education funding, a reduction to the foundation level would be avoided, and the cut could be spread in an even way so no districts become substantial winners or losers. Eddy said under the plan, any additional money would be split evenly between general aid and transportation funding.
When asked if delaying cuts to education was fair to other areas of government that are also having to make hard choices, , such as human services, Eddy said that there are “real cuts” in his committee's budget. “There’s $177 million less in that budget, in education, than there were in FY 11. So the cuts are real. And there might not be supplemental money, and if there’s not supplemental money. then school districts will receive less [general state aid] money next year.”
Eddy said a possible silver lining for school districts planning their budgets is that the plan doesn’t promise money the state doesn’t have. “We can all take a little bit of solace in the fact that these are real dollars that are likely to be available, as compared to past budgets, where there were appropriation increases and school districts just didn’t see the money.”
Lawmakers look to improve Illinoisans' diets
By Lauren N. Johnson
Lawmakers are considering bills they hope will make Illinois residents healthier by encouraging them to cut down on beverages with added sugar and banning foods containing trans fat.
“Young people like sweet things,” said Chicago Democratic Sen. William Delgado. He hopes to cut down on children’s’ sugar intake with Senate Bill 396, which would place an excise tax of $1.28 per gallon or $.01 per ounce on highly caloric sugary beverages. Under the measure, a 12-ounce can of soda would cost Illinoisans 12 cents more in taxes, and the money would go into a fund for programs in schools and communities geared to prevent childhood obesity.
Elissa Bassler, chief executive officer of the Illinois Public Health Institute, said more than 62 percent of adults are overweight or obese, and one and five children struggle with obesity, which she said leads to cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes.
“Currently, the direct health care costs of obesity is more than $4 billion, and that’s expected to rise to as much as $14 billion by 2018,” said Bassler, who noted that more than $1 billion of those costs are paid for with state and federal tax dollars through Medicaid. She suggested that the tax could bring savings of $1.5 billion over 10 years in health care costs to the state by reducing consumption rates.
Proponents of the proposal say the tax would serve as a funding source for many of those prevention programs and the state’s fiscal problems. Some believe, however, that tackling other sides of the issue may be more effective.
Sen. Dave Syverson, a Republican from Rockford, said groups should take a “systematic approach” to addressing unhealthy foods served in schools and place stronger restrictions on what can be purchased with food stamps. “The idea of having kids show up at school having french toast sticks for breakfast and then trying to educate them that having a soft drink is bad for them doesn’t make a whole lot of sense,” Syverson said.
Those who oppose the tax say beverage distributors have taken steps to address obesity and that an additional tax would place an undue burden on the average person’s grocery bill. Tim Bramlet, executive director of the Illinois Beverage Association, said sugared beverages only make up seven percent of the average American’s diet and that a number of jobs would be at risk if the tax were imposed.
“It would impact businesses that make products right here in Illinois, where we produce the soft drinks on which many families depend on for their income,” Bramlet said. “Obesity is a very complex problem. …We don’t think taking aim at one very small part of the issue is a way to solve the problem,” he added.
Another measure, House Bill 1600, sponsored by Chicago Democrats Rep. LaShawn Ford and Sen. Donne E. Trotter, would ban trans fat used in Illinois restaurants. A Senate committee today approved an amendment that would give an exemption for baked goods. John Roeser, vice president of the Chicago Retail Bakers Association and independent owner of Roeser’s Bakery in Chicago, said that without the the exclusion of baked goods in the bill, many retail bakers would have closed their doors.
Many restaurants are not pushing back against the proposed ban because they have already stopped using the additive, which has taken a beating in the media from public health advocates. “So many members really stopped using trans fat in recent years,” said Janet Isabelli, spokeswoman for the Illinois Restaurant Association.
Lawmakers are considering bills they hope will make Illinois residents healthier by encouraging them to cut down on beverages with added sugar and banning foods containing trans fat.
“Young people like sweet things,” said Chicago Democratic Sen. William Delgado. He hopes to cut down on children’s’ sugar intake with Senate Bill 396, which would place an excise tax of $1.28 per gallon or $.01 per ounce on highly caloric sugary beverages. Under the measure, a 12-ounce can of soda would cost Illinoisans 12 cents more in taxes, and the money would go into a fund for programs in schools and communities geared to prevent childhood obesity.
Elissa Bassler, chief executive officer of the Illinois Public Health Institute, said more than 62 percent of adults are overweight or obese, and one and five children struggle with obesity, which she said leads to cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes.
“Currently, the direct health care costs of obesity is more than $4 billion, and that’s expected to rise to as much as $14 billion by 2018,” said Bassler, who noted that more than $1 billion of those costs are paid for with state and federal tax dollars through Medicaid. She suggested that the tax could bring savings of $1.5 billion over 10 years in health care costs to the state by reducing consumption rates.
Proponents of the proposal say the tax would serve as a funding source for many of those prevention programs and the state’s fiscal problems. Some believe, however, that tackling other sides of the issue may be more effective.
Sen. Dave Syverson, a Republican from Rockford, said groups should take a “systematic approach” to addressing unhealthy foods served in schools and place stronger restrictions on what can be purchased with food stamps. “The idea of having kids show up at school having french toast sticks for breakfast and then trying to educate them that having a soft drink is bad for them doesn’t make a whole lot of sense,” Syverson said.
Those who oppose the tax say beverage distributors have taken steps to address obesity and that an additional tax would place an undue burden on the average person’s grocery bill. Tim Bramlet, executive director of the Illinois Beverage Association, said sugared beverages only make up seven percent of the average American’s diet and that a number of jobs would be at risk if the tax were imposed.
“It would impact businesses that make products right here in Illinois, where we produce the soft drinks on which many families depend on for their income,” Bramlet said. “Obesity is a very complex problem. …We don’t think taking aim at one very small part of the issue is a way to solve the problem,” he added.
Another measure, House Bill 1600, sponsored by Chicago Democrats Rep. LaShawn Ford and Sen. Donne E. Trotter, would ban trans fat used in Illinois restaurants. A Senate committee today approved an amendment that would give an exemption for baked goods. John Roeser, vice president of the Chicago Retail Bakers Association and independent owner of Roeser’s Bakery in Chicago, said that without the the exclusion of baked goods in the bill, many retail bakers would have closed their doors.
Many restaurants are not pushing back against the proposed ban because they have already stopped using the additive, which has taken a beating in the media from public health advocates. “So many members really stopped using trans fat in recent years,” said Janet Isabelli, spokeswoman for the Illinois Restaurant Association.
Friday, May 06, 2011
DCFS says it can handle a Catholic Charities exit from foster care
By Jamey Dunn
The Illinois Department of Child and Family Services says it can make other plans if Catholic Charities pulls out of its contracts to administer foster care and adoption programs in the state.
Catholic leaders are pushing a bill in the General Assembly that would allow them to refer to another agency couples who have civil unions and are seeking to become adoptive or foster parents. Senate Bill 1123 failed to get enough votes in a Senate committee last month to make it to the floor for a full vote. Bob Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, said there is enough support to pass the legislation if it came before the full Senate.
Gilligan said without passage of the bill, Catholic Charities would no longer be able administer foster care and adoption services for DCFS because it would be forced to place kids with couples who are “cohabitating” under civil unions instead of a marriage, and this would violate the church’s values. “We want to continue to contract with the state of Illinois to provide foster care and adoption services, but if the law is not changed we’ll be faced with the very real possibility of being forced out of providing these services to very poor and vulnerable children,” Gilligan said.
“We are preparing for that possibility,” said Kendall Marlowe, spokesman for DCFS. Marlowe said the state has a model of how to make do without the organization. He said the department had to transfer about 1,000 children to other providers after Catholic Charities in Chicago stopped providing the services in 2007. The organization made the move after being dropped by its insurance provider.
Marlowe said most people are not aware that the number of children in the system has shrunk dramatically in recent years — from about 52,000 children in 1997 to about 15,500 today. More than 2,670 of those children are currently under the care of Catholic Charities. He said the decrease in the overall number is a product of the department’s work to find permanent home placements for more kids. “We got much better at getting kids out of the system that didn’t really need to be there.”
He added, “Illinois has one of the most highly privatized child welfare programs in the country.” Marlowe said with more than 80 percent of the system handled by private entities, DCFS would have a large network of providers to help pick up the slack. He said there are areas in the southern part of the state where Catholic Charities is the only provider. “We would transfer the cases to existing agencies but it would be a significant challenge. I don’t mean to candy coat that or underplay that in any way,” he said. If Catholic Charities were to stop providing care, he said DCFS would likely need existing agencies to expand their services to some areas. “It is a significant challenge, but we would meet it.”
Marlowe said currently Catholic Charities, along with other faith-based agencies in the state, refer same-sex couples to other entities for adoption and foster care licenses, a policy he calls an “awkward compromise.” The Illinois Attorney General’s office, DCFS and Gov. Pat Quinn’s administration are currently reviewing the practice. “DCFS and the Illinois child welfare system serve children and families without regard to sexual orientation,” he said. “There is the question of whether private agencies can use public money to discriminate in this way.”
Representatives of the church say it is not seeking to discriminate but instead to continue practicing its values by referring couples who are in living situations that it does not condone to another provider or to DCFS. They note that same sex couples are currently adoptive and foster parents in the state.
“Gay individuals and gay couples right now in the state of Illinois are adoptive parents and they are foster parents. And…they were in no way impeded because of our belief from becoming foster parents or adoptive parents. They’re out there, and they’re doing a good job as far as we know, and that’s fine,” said Steven Roach, executive director of Springfield Catholic Charities. “After civil unions [goes into effect,] no civil unions couple will be denied the opportunity to become a foster parent of an adoptive parent. There will be no change. … This bans nothing. And when you hear words like discrimination please keep in your mind not one — not one — civil unions couple will be denied the opportunity to become a foster parent or an adoptive parent in the state of Illinois because of our belief.”
But equal rights activists say that the church is asking for the right to discriminate while administering state-funded programs. “I think no matter how you look at this question … it is just outrageous,” said Bernard Cherkasov, chief executive officer of Equality Illinois. “They are trying to replace the best-interest-of-the-child standard with their own religiously based and sometimes biased standard.”
Gilligan said Catholic Charities is not setting an ultimatum for lawmakers, but instead urging them to make the change. He said they have not yet made a final decision on the issue. “We don’t want to get to that point. That’s why we’re urging the General Assembly to pass this legislation. … June 1 [when civil unions go into effect] is an important date,” Gilligan said.
Marlowe said any entity that contracts with the state is agreeing to uphold Illinois law. He said if Catholic Charities cannot do that, they may be unable to contract with DCFS. “That would be an unfortunate outcome, but it would be a choice that they are making.”
The Illinois Department of Child and Family Services says it can make other plans if Catholic Charities pulls out of its contracts to administer foster care and adoption programs in the state.
Catholic leaders are pushing a bill in the General Assembly that would allow them to refer to another agency couples who have civil unions and are seeking to become adoptive or foster parents. Senate Bill 1123 failed to get enough votes in a Senate committee last month to make it to the floor for a full vote. Bob Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, said there is enough support to pass the legislation if it came before the full Senate.
Gilligan said without passage of the bill, Catholic Charities would no longer be able administer foster care and adoption services for DCFS because it would be forced to place kids with couples who are “cohabitating” under civil unions instead of a marriage, and this would violate the church’s values. “We want to continue to contract with the state of Illinois to provide foster care and adoption services, but if the law is not changed we’ll be faced with the very real possibility of being forced out of providing these services to very poor and vulnerable children,” Gilligan said.
“We are preparing for that possibility,” said Kendall Marlowe, spokesman for DCFS. Marlowe said the state has a model of how to make do without the organization. He said the department had to transfer about 1,000 children to other providers after Catholic Charities in Chicago stopped providing the services in 2007. The organization made the move after being dropped by its insurance provider.
Marlowe said most people are not aware that the number of children in the system has shrunk dramatically in recent years — from about 52,000 children in 1997 to about 15,500 today. More than 2,670 of those children are currently under the care of Catholic Charities. He said the decrease in the overall number is a product of the department’s work to find permanent home placements for more kids. “We got much better at getting kids out of the system that didn’t really need to be there.”
He added, “Illinois has one of the most highly privatized child welfare programs in the country.” Marlowe said with more than 80 percent of the system handled by private entities, DCFS would have a large network of providers to help pick up the slack. He said there are areas in the southern part of the state where Catholic Charities is the only provider. “We would transfer the cases to existing agencies but it would be a significant challenge. I don’t mean to candy coat that or underplay that in any way,” he said. If Catholic Charities were to stop providing care, he said DCFS would likely need existing agencies to expand their services to some areas. “It is a significant challenge, but we would meet it.”
Marlowe said currently Catholic Charities, along with other faith-based agencies in the state, refer same-sex couples to other entities for adoption and foster care licenses, a policy he calls an “awkward compromise.” The Illinois Attorney General’s office, DCFS and Gov. Pat Quinn’s administration are currently reviewing the practice. “DCFS and the Illinois child welfare system serve children and families without regard to sexual orientation,” he said. “There is the question of whether private agencies can use public money to discriminate in this way.”
Representatives of the church say it is not seeking to discriminate but instead to continue practicing its values by referring couples who are in living situations that it does not condone to another provider or to DCFS. They note that same sex couples are currently adoptive and foster parents in the state.
“Gay individuals and gay couples right now in the state of Illinois are adoptive parents and they are foster parents. And…they were in no way impeded because of our belief from becoming foster parents or adoptive parents. They’re out there, and they’re doing a good job as far as we know, and that’s fine,” said Steven Roach, executive director of Springfield Catholic Charities. “After civil unions [goes into effect,] no civil unions couple will be denied the opportunity to become a foster parent of an adoptive parent. There will be no change. … This bans nothing. And when you hear words like discrimination please keep in your mind not one — not one — civil unions couple will be denied the opportunity to become a foster parent or an adoptive parent in the state of Illinois because of our belief.”
But equal rights activists say that the church is asking for the right to discriminate while administering state-funded programs. “I think no matter how you look at this question … it is just outrageous,” said Bernard Cherkasov, chief executive officer of Equality Illinois. “They are trying to replace the best-interest-of-the-child standard with their own religiously based and sometimes biased standard.”
Gilligan said Catholic Charities is not setting an ultimatum for lawmakers, but instead urging them to make the change. He said they have not yet made a final decision on the issue. “We don’t want to get to that point. That’s why we’re urging the General Assembly to pass this legislation. … June 1 [when civil unions go into effect] is an important date,” Gilligan said.
Marlowe said any entity that contracts with the state is agreeing to uphold Illinois law. He said if Catholic Charities cannot do that, they may be unable to contract with DCFS. “That would be an unfortunate outcome, but it would be a choice that they are making.”
Thursday, May 05, 2011
House rejects concealed carry
By Lauren N. Johnson
A bill that would have allowed Illinois residents to carry concealed firearms fell just six votes shy of passage today after a heated debate on the House floor.
Proponents of the bill, HB 148, sponsored by Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, said the measure would provide safety for those who obey the law and want to protect themselves and their families.
The bill would have required concealed carry permit applicants to own a Firearm Owner’s Identification card, go through eight hours of firearm education training, and have a background check done of mental illness and criminal records, prior to legally carrying a loaded firearm in the state.
Phelps said many of those who opposed the measure were against guns being carried on the streets. Yet, he said criminals are already carrying guns illegally. “What in the world is wrong with us to be able to defend ourselves and our families just in the split second if there is a confrontation,” said Phelps on the House floor.
Those in favor of the bill again noted that Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states in the country that do not allow some form of concealed carry. Alton Republican Rep. Dan Beiser pointed to the fact that Illinoisans often travel into states with concealed carry laws likely without even thinking about the issue. "And for those that suggest that this would increase violence or that their safety would be put in harm’s way. I would just ask this question. When you've traveled to other states in this country, that all 48 other states [that have concealed carry] the minute you crossed that border, did you fear for your safety? And I would venture a guess that almost everyone to the men and women of this body would have to honestly say when I boarded that plane, crossed that border, or when I got in my car and crossed that border, I did not fear for my safety."
However, opponents of the measure voiced concern with what would be legal carry zones for gun owners in public places, such as parks and restaurants, and said the bill would have added to more gun violence, particularly in Cook County and the City of Chicago. The bill needed a supermajority of 71 votes to overrule Chicago’s home rule authority and allow concealed carry in the city, which had a ban on residents owning handguns until is was recently overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Phelps said he worked with anyone who approached him to try and find compromise and that he limited the areas where people could carry guns — including college campuses — to ease opponents fears.
Mark Walsh, campaign director for the Illinois Campaign to Protect Gun Violence, a project of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence said, “The discretion that they claimed they worked on would still allow people to have weapons near schools and in the parking lots of universities.”
Rep. Edward Acevedo, a Chicago Democrat, said the bill would have put a burden on police officers and would have potentially endangered them. “Right now, if a police officer sees a person with a gun on the street they know immediately that the gun is illegal.”
He added, “But if the bill becomes law, anyone will be carrying a gun on the street and rather than moving swiftly to protect themselves and us, the officer’s response with a gun will have to delay — that delay can be fatal to that officer,” Acevedo said. Others said the bill would have also strained an out-of-date FOID system, a system run by the Illinois State Police that would have had to process an estimated 100,000 applications for the concealed carry permits in its first year.
Proponents said the bill’s failure was due in large part to strong opposition from some law enforcement agencies, Chicago-based advocates against gun violence and Gov. Pat Quinn, who vowed again today to veto the bill passed and whose administration strongly lobbied lawmakers against the legislation.
Phelps placed the bill on postponed consideration in hope of moving forward with the issue before the close of the session. “We’re willing to talk to anybody,” he said.
'Compromise' medical marijuana bill fails in the House
By Jamey Dunn
A rewrite of a bill that would legalize medical marijuana and the support of a Republican legislative leader were not enough for the plan to get the needed support in the Illinois House today.
Rep. Lou Lang, the sponsor of House Bill 30, has repeatedly said that up to a hundred of his fellow House members support the proposal privately, but he says no one who was sitting on the fence voted in support of his bill.
“I wouldn’t say anything went wrong. I would simply say that people dug their heels in and decided to vote in what they felt was a safe way politically for themselves,” said Lang, a Skokie Democrat.
Lang backed a different bill that passed in the Senate but failed on two separate House votes during the closing days of last legislative session. That measure would have allowed licensed patients to grow their own plants. The revamped version of the bill would instead allow for the creation of 59 nonprofit dispensaries — one per Senate district — to supply marijuana. Patients would be allowed to buy 2.5 ounces of cannabis every 14 days and would not be allowed to have more than that amount at any given time. The bill stepped up the criminal penalties for those who illegally sold medical pot. Unlike the previous legislation, the new incarnation has a specific list of illnesses that would be eligible for possible treatment with marijuana. Patients would have to be referred by their doctors to the Department of Public Health, which would make the final call on who would be licensed to purchase cannabis.
Lang’s compromised version would also allow employers and landlords to set their own policies regarding the potential drug use of their tenants or employees. Lang said he listened to the floor debate from last session and tried to address some of the concerns voiced. “What we did not change is the core of the bill. … The core of this bill is making sick people feel better.”
He said that some of the 15 states that have legalized the use of marijuana for medical treatment have had problems. However he said his bill is “model piece of legislation for this country.” The District of Columbia has legalized medical marijuana, as well. The legislation would sunset in three years, so lawmakers would have to approve it again if they decided that they wanted to continue the policy. "Let's try for 3 years what 16 other states have tried," Lang said.
Rep. Patti Bellock, a Hinsdale Republican, said considering the deep budget cuts that state agencies are facing, she cannot justify asking the Department of Public Health to administer the program. She said they department is struggling to keep up with its current responsibilities.
Bellock said that legislators would be violating their oaths of office if they voted to allow something in the state that is considered illegal by the federal government. She said if supporters want to see a change, they must first work to change the federal law.
“I don’t think because the federal government has failed to research something that provides relief to people…we should hide our heads under the sand and ignore the facts,” Lang said.
Other opponents said that allowing patients access to marijuana would mean helping those who seek to use the drug recreationally.
“It’s an absolute unacceptable proposal. … Giving someone this much marijuana and believing it will not create problems is absolutely unacceptable,” said Rep. Jim Sacia, a Pecatonica Republican, He pointed to problems other states have had controlling access to the drug. “The great state of Montana — ‘big sky’ country — is starting to refer to itself as ‘big high’ country because they cannot control the runaway problem with medical marijuana.”
The proposal did find a new Republican ally in House Minority Leader Tom Cross. The former prosecutor said it was a difficult choice he made after much deliberation. “A number of people on my side of the aisle do not support this bill, and I respect that.”
The bill got 53 ‘yes’ votes today. It needs 60 to pass. Lang said some supporters switched their votes to ‘no’ or ‘present’ when they saw the measure would fail. “That 53 is really 58,” he said after the vote. Lang said that he plans to keep pushing the issue and held his legislation so it can come up for another vote. The deadline to get the bill voted out of the House is next week; however, there is a possibility for an extension as well as some procedural shortcuts to get around the deadline. “I have plenty of time. We’re going to be here until the end of May. If I have a chance to pass it, even if it’s on May 31, then I will do so.”
A rewrite of a bill that would legalize medical marijuana and the support of a Republican legislative leader were not enough for the plan to get the needed support in the Illinois House today.
Rep. Lou Lang, the sponsor of House Bill 30, has repeatedly said that up to a hundred of his fellow House members support the proposal privately, but he says no one who was sitting on the fence voted in support of his bill.
“I wouldn’t say anything went wrong. I would simply say that people dug their heels in and decided to vote in what they felt was a safe way politically for themselves,” said Lang, a Skokie Democrat.
Lang backed a different bill that passed in the Senate but failed on two separate House votes during the closing days of last legislative session. That measure would have allowed licensed patients to grow their own plants. The revamped version of the bill would instead allow for the creation of 59 nonprofit dispensaries — one per Senate district — to supply marijuana. Patients would be allowed to buy 2.5 ounces of cannabis every 14 days and would not be allowed to have more than that amount at any given time. The bill stepped up the criminal penalties for those who illegally sold medical pot. Unlike the previous legislation, the new incarnation has a specific list of illnesses that would be eligible for possible treatment with marijuana. Patients would have to be referred by their doctors to the Department of Public Health, which would make the final call on who would be licensed to purchase cannabis.
Lang’s compromised version would also allow employers and landlords to set their own policies regarding the potential drug use of their tenants or employees. Lang said he listened to the floor debate from last session and tried to address some of the concerns voiced. “What we did not change is the core of the bill. … The core of this bill is making sick people feel better.”
He said that some of the 15 states that have legalized the use of marijuana for medical treatment have had problems. However he said his bill is “model piece of legislation for this country.” The District of Columbia has legalized medical marijuana, as well. The legislation would sunset in three years, so lawmakers would have to approve it again if they decided that they wanted to continue the policy. "Let's try for 3 years what 16 other states have tried," Lang said.
Rep. Patti Bellock, a Hinsdale Republican, said considering the deep budget cuts that state agencies are facing, she cannot justify asking the Department of Public Health to administer the program. She said they department is struggling to keep up with its current responsibilities.
Bellock said that legislators would be violating their oaths of office if they voted to allow something in the state that is considered illegal by the federal government. She said if supporters want to see a change, they must first work to change the federal law.
“I don’t think because the federal government has failed to research something that provides relief to people…we should hide our heads under the sand and ignore the facts,” Lang said.
Other opponents said that allowing patients access to marijuana would mean helping those who seek to use the drug recreationally.
“It’s an absolute unacceptable proposal. … Giving someone this much marijuana and believing it will not create problems is absolutely unacceptable,” said Rep. Jim Sacia, a Pecatonica Republican, He pointed to problems other states have had controlling access to the drug. “The great state of Montana — ‘big sky’ country — is starting to refer to itself as ‘big high’ country because they cannot control the runaway problem with medical marijuana.”
The proposal did find a new Republican ally in House Minority Leader Tom Cross. The former prosecutor said it was a difficult choice he made after much deliberation. “A number of people on my side of the aisle do not support this bill, and I respect that.”
The bill got 53 ‘yes’ votes today. It needs 60 to pass. Lang said some supporters switched their votes to ‘no’ or ‘present’ when they saw the measure would fail. “That 53 is really 58,” he said after the vote. Lang said that he plans to keep pushing the issue and held his legislation so it can come up for another vote. The deadline to get the bill voted out of the House is next week; however, there is a possibility for an extension as well as some procedural shortcuts to get around the deadline. “I have plenty of time. We’re going to be here until the end of May. If I have a chance to pass it, even if it’s on May 31, then I will do so.”
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Democrats pass budget bills despite GOP protests
By Jamey Dunn
Senate Democrats began passing pieces of a budget that they say would cut more than $1 billion from Gov. Pat Quinn’s plan, but Republicans say it would still increase spending from the current fiscal year.
Democrats say that their plan reduces spending from the governor’s proposal by about $1.2 billion. Republicans say it increases spending from the current fiscal year and only cuts from Quinn’s plan by about $364 million.
As bill after bill came up for a vote today, Republicans rose to say that they increased the bottom line over this year’s costs for the state agencies for which each bill set out spending limits. However, Democrats said because the General Assembly gave the governor lump sum budgets and let him decide where to make cuts for the last two fiscal years, recent spending levels are difficult to pin down. “Last year we did a lump sum appropriation. We had problems finding out — because of that — how much money was spent in individual agencies because it was up to the governor to do so,” said Senate President John Cullerton.
Democrats said if Republicans will not introduce their own budget bills, they have nothing else to work with. After a protracted debate about the spending bill for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Cullerton said he would be willing to slow things down to consider Republican proposals, as long as they are in the form of legislation. “It’s very likely that we are spending less money than we did last year for the department of DNR. Now I would say, though, if you need to have us hold this bill to have the Republican approach to the budget for the department of DNR, I’d be happy to wait for it. What do you want us to do for the department of DNR? We’re cutting the governor’s proposal, and you’re criticizing us,” Cullerton said.
Republicans put out a list of options earlier in the legislative session that they say would cut more than $6 billion from Quinn’s proposal, saying that about $5 billion in cuts would be needed for the recent tax increase to phase out, as written in the law. However, they have not proposed their plan in the form of legislation. Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican, said Democrats know what his party would support. “We put out a budget proposal that had enough specificity. I know the local mayors in my district know what we said in the plan and where we’re looking to cut. The idea that we didn’t make a clear statement of what we were looking to do if we didn’t actually [have the ideas drafted into bills] is a red herring. People know what we want to do. We want to cut enough so that the tax increase is temporary [and] we don’t have to borrow anymore to pay our bills.”
Sen. Dan Kotowski, chairman of a Senate budget committee and sponsor of many of the budget bills, said he is focusing on creating a balanced budget for the next fiscal year based on the revenue projection that the Senate approved. Kotowski, a Park Ridge Democrat, said Quinn wanted to spend too much in his plan, and now, it is up to lawmakers to trim that proposal until it is in line with the funds the state will bring in next year. “The fact is that we’re making significant reductions. We’re cutting the cost of government, and we’re going to save taxpayers money,” he said.
Democrats were able to pass 10 of the more than 20 budget bills that make up their total plan. One bill, which would have set spending levels for some of the smaller state agencies, failed to get the needed support. Some Republicans did support a few bills, including the budgets for the Department of Labor and Central Management Services, saying the reductions were close to the cuts they proposed. “Our intention for most of us, I think — on our side of the aisle, the Republican side — is to support them when they get cuts in the neighborhood of what we had asked for,’ Murphy said.
Chicago Democratic Sen. Heather Steans, who also chairs a budget committee and sponsors the remainder of the budget bills, said it is important for the Senate to start sending budget bills over to the House so members facing the even steeper cuts forced by the lower House revenue projection have other options. “I am certainly hopeful that these bills look very reasonable over there to our House colleagues when they are comparing them to what they’re trying to pass. … I think it might help, in fact, put some pressure on House members to think about how they’re voting if they have an alternative that is out there.”
She said the Senate could vote on more budget bills by the end of this week or early next week and that negotiations are ongoing.
Quinn, who has kept his distance publicly from the budgeting process, hinted today that he could become more involved if lawmakers cannot agree on a plan. “We proposed economies. Some of the members of the General Assembly, I guess the majority in some cases, don’t want to economize, so we’re going to find a path to Heaven where we have to make reductions, economies and savings. It’s imperative that we do that, and my job is to make sure that happens sometimes, whether they like it or not.”
He added that he would be willing to take on a lump sum budget for the third year in a row if legislators cannot produce a line item budget. “Last couple of years, legislators, as they came down to the final turn, decided they didn’t want to be specific on cuts, other than rhetorically talk about them. So they turned it over to me to make all the cuts, and that’s what I did. And will do it again if that’s what they want,” Quinn said. Lawmakers in both chambers and on both sides of the aisle have vowed not to punt the budget to the governor this year.
Senate Democrats began passing pieces of a budget that they say would cut more than $1 billion from Gov. Pat Quinn’s plan, but Republicans say it would still increase spending from the current fiscal year.
Democrats say that their plan reduces spending from the governor’s proposal by about $1.2 billion. Republicans say it increases spending from the current fiscal year and only cuts from Quinn’s plan by about $364 million.
As bill after bill came up for a vote today, Republicans rose to say that they increased the bottom line over this year’s costs for the state agencies for which each bill set out spending limits. However, Democrats said because the General Assembly gave the governor lump sum budgets and let him decide where to make cuts for the last two fiscal years, recent spending levels are difficult to pin down. “Last year we did a lump sum appropriation. We had problems finding out — because of that — how much money was spent in individual agencies because it was up to the governor to do so,” said Senate President John Cullerton.
Democrats said if Republicans will not introduce their own budget bills, they have nothing else to work with. After a protracted debate about the spending bill for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Cullerton said he would be willing to slow things down to consider Republican proposals, as long as they are in the form of legislation. “It’s very likely that we are spending less money than we did last year for the department of DNR. Now I would say, though, if you need to have us hold this bill to have the Republican approach to the budget for the department of DNR, I’d be happy to wait for it. What do you want us to do for the department of DNR? We’re cutting the governor’s proposal, and you’re criticizing us,” Cullerton said.
Republicans put out a list of options earlier in the legislative session that they say would cut more than $6 billion from Quinn’s proposal, saying that about $5 billion in cuts would be needed for the recent tax increase to phase out, as written in the law. However, they have not proposed their plan in the form of legislation. Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican, said Democrats know what his party would support. “We put out a budget proposal that had enough specificity. I know the local mayors in my district know what we said in the plan and where we’re looking to cut. The idea that we didn’t make a clear statement of what we were looking to do if we didn’t actually [have the ideas drafted into bills] is a red herring. People know what we want to do. We want to cut enough so that the tax increase is temporary [and] we don’t have to borrow anymore to pay our bills.”
Sen. Dan Kotowski, chairman of a Senate budget committee and sponsor of many of the budget bills, said he is focusing on creating a balanced budget for the next fiscal year based on the revenue projection that the Senate approved. Kotowski, a Park Ridge Democrat, said Quinn wanted to spend too much in his plan, and now, it is up to lawmakers to trim that proposal until it is in line with the funds the state will bring in next year. “The fact is that we’re making significant reductions. We’re cutting the cost of government, and we’re going to save taxpayers money,” he said.
Democrats were able to pass 10 of the more than 20 budget bills that make up their total plan. One bill, which would have set spending levels for some of the smaller state agencies, failed to get the needed support. Some Republicans did support a few bills, including the budgets for the Department of Labor and Central Management Services, saying the reductions were close to the cuts they proposed. “Our intention for most of us, I think — on our side of the aisle, the Republican side — is to support them when they get cuts in the neighborhood of what we had asked for,’ Murphy said.
Chicago Democratic Sen. Heather Steans, who also chairs a budget committee and sponsors the remainder of the budget bills, said it is important for the Senate to start sending budget bills over to the House so members facing the even steeper cuts forced by the lower House revenue projection have other options. “I am certainly hopeful that these bills look very reasonable over there to our House colleagues when they are comparing them to what they’re trying to pass. … I think it might help, in fact, put some pressure on House members to think about how they’re voting if they have an alternative that is out there.”
She said the Senate could vote on more budget bills by the end of this week or early next week and that negotiations are ongoing.
Quinn, who has kept his distance publicly from the budgeting process, hinted today that he could become more involved if lawmakers cannot agree on a plan. “We proposed economies. Some of the members of the General Assembly, I guess the majority in some cases, don’t want to economize, so we’re going to find a path to Heaven where we have to make reductions, economies and savings. It’s imperative that we do that, and my job is to make sure that happens sometimes, whether they like it or not.”
He added that he would be willing to take on a lump sum budget for the third year in a row if legislators cannot produce a line item budget. “Last couple of years, legislators, as they came down to the final turn, decided they didn’t want to be specific on cuts, other than rhetorically talk about them. So they turned it over to me to make all the cuts, and that’s what I did. And will do it again if that’s what they want,” Quinn said. Lawmakers in both chambers and on both sides of the aisle have vowed not to punt the budget to the governor this year.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Senate Democratic budget greeted with pushback
By Jamey Dunn
Senate Democrats introduced a slew of budget bills today to objections and reservations from both sides of the aisle.
Democrats say the plan would cut $1.2 billion from Gov. Pat Quinn’s budget proposal.
Senate Republicans say they are glad that the conversation in the Capitol has shifted from new revenues and borrowing to cuts. However, they are skeptical that the plan as proposed makes any reductions to Quinn’s bottom line.
Park Ridge Democratic Sen. Dan Kotowski, chair of a Senate budgeting committee, said the cuts are not just cost shifting but real spending reductions.
He said every state agency would see a 5 percent cut to administrative costs, a 5 percent cut to personnel costs and a 7 percent cut to money spent on contracts. Those cuts would not apply to executive officers. “We’re looking for them to present waste to reduce spending within their budgets,” Kotowski said.
Why the uncertainty? Because the budget came in the form of more than 50 amendments introduced this afternoon. Lawmakers complained that they did not have time to review the plan in its entirety, so Democratic leaders put committee votes on hold.
“If we’re going to deal with this in a holistic approach, whether we can buy into the fact that $1.2 billion solves the problem or not, it would be nice to know what the $1.2 billion is,” said Sen. Bill Brady, a Republican from Bloomington.
Some Democrats said they also felt as if the budget had been dropped in their laps and warned against making hasty decisions. “When we make these cuts, they are real and they affect real people. So we do have to be careful. … We should go through this list slowly, completely and without an eye on what constituents get helped and what constituents get hurt but based on the numbers. It’s easy to say, ‘I want cuts.’ It’s tough to do it,” said Sen. Mike Jacobs, an East Moline Democrat.
Morris Republican Sen. Sue Rezin asked for at least 72 hours notice before a floor vote on any of the budget bills, but Kotowski wouldn’t make any guarantees. “I couldn’t promise you a rose garden if I wanted to,” Kotowski said. “Our goal is to move forward and get votes and to get feedback on the budget.” He said lawmakers have been in talks for month and should not be surprised at the budget numbers. He said lawmakers will now go back to their respective party caucuses to negotiate and hash out what comes next, and a plan to move forward could come as early as tomorrow.
Kotowski added, “I do know that we want to move very quickly just because it’s a challenge to get people to accept the fact that we’re making significant cuts.”
Senate Democrats introduced a slew of budget bills today to objections and reservations from both sides of the aisle.
Democrats say the plan would cut $1.2 billion from Gov. Pat Quinn’s budget proposal.
Senate Republicans say they are glad that the conversation in the Capitol has shifted from new revenues and borrowing to cuts. However, they are skeptical that the plan as proposed makes any reductions to Quinn’s bottom line.
Park Ridge Democratic Sen. Dan Kotowski, chair of a Senate budgeting committee, said the cuts are not just cost shifting but real spending reductions.
He said every state agency would see a 5 percent cut to administrative costs, a 5 percent cut to personnel costs and a 7 percent cut to money spent on contracts. Those cuts would not apply to executive officers. “We’re looking for them to present waste to reduce spending within their budgets,” Kotowski said.
Why the uncertainty? Because the budget came in the form of more than 50 amendments introduced this afternoon. Lawmakers complained that they did not have time to review the plan in its entirety, so Democratic leaders put committee votes on hold.
“If we’re going to deal with this in a holistic approach, whether we can buy into the fact that $1.2 billion solves the problem or not, it would be nice to know what the $1.2 billion is,” said Sen. Bill Brady, a Republican from Bloomington.
Some Democrats said they also felt as if the budget had been dropped in their laps and warned against making hasty decisions. “When we make these cuts, they are real and they affect real people. So we do have to be careful. … We should go through this list slowly, completely and without an eye on what constituents get helped and what constituents get hurt but based on the numbers. It’s easy to say, ‘I want cuts.’ It’s tough to do it,” said Sen. Mike Jacobs, an East Moline Democrat.
Morris Republican Sen. Sue Rezin asked for at least 72 hours notice before a floor vote on any of the budget bills, but Kotowski wouldn’t make any guarantees. “I couldn’t promise you a rose garden if I wanted to,” Kotowski said. “Our goal is to move forward and get votes and to get feedback on the budget.” He said lawmakers have been in talks for month and should not be surprised at the budget numbers. He said lawmakers will now go back to their respective party caucuses to negotiate and hash out what comes next, and a plan to move forward could come as early as tomorrow.
Kotowski added, “I do know that we want to move very quickly just because it’s a challenge to get people to accept the fact that we’re making significant cuts.”
Quinn nixes concealed carry as it moves in the House
By Lauren N. Johnson
A House committee voted today in favor of a proposal that would allow Illinois residents to carry loaded firearms, but Gov. Pat Quinn vowed to veto the measure if it ends up on his desk.
House Bill 148, sponsored by Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, would permit citizens to carry concealed, loaded handguns in public places, such as shopping malls, restaurants, parks and rest stops. The bill would bar carrying a gun in most government buildings, including schools. “It’s called concealed carry, but what is concealed and hidden from the public is a loaded gun,” said Quinn, who campaigned against concealed carry of firearms during his run for governor last November.
The bill would require applicants for a concealed carry permit to pay a $100 application fee, have eight hours of classroom firearm training, including gun range training administered by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board, and receive notice from the state about carry zones where individuals would be allowed to bring firearms.
Hiram Grau, director of the Illinois State Police, said that issuing concealed carry permits would require additional manpower from the department. “The demands of this proposed concealed law are going to put a huge burden on our antiquated FOID system. The applications are going to be coming in hot and heavy, and we’re just not prepared for that.”
Colleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said her group commissioned a statewide survey in March done by The Mellman Group, a Washington D.C.-based research firm, that found that 65 percent of Illinois registered voters opposed the idea of an individual carrying a concealed loaded handgun. “Concealed carry does not stop crime,” said Daley.
Quinn agreed, “To allow concealed, loaded handguns in the possession of private citizens in public places will not enhance public safety in Illinois; it will not reduce violence. Indeed, it will increase violence.”
Illinois is one of only two states without a law permitting the concealed carry of firearms. “I mean 48 other states can’t be wrong, and that’s not the reason we’re trying to pass this. We just think that law-abiding gun owners ought to have the right, their constitutional right, to do this, and we have two court cases on our side,” Phelps said .
Quinn said he received letters from presidents of the state’s public universities in strong opposition to the bill. The proposal comes after the deaths of five students at Northern Illinois University in 2008, where a gunman used a legally purchased a firearm.
After much opposition from universities, Phelps removed college campuses from the legal carry zones listed in his bill. “We’ve worked with every group that wants to work with us,” Phelps said. “The only group that wouldn’t meet with us was the city of Chicago because they are always going to be against this.”
Steve Peterson, deputy superintendent for the Chicago Police Department, said allowing individuals to carry guns could turn what would have previously been a vocal altercation or a fistfight into a deadly exchange. “Now, when the aggression becomes more and one or two of those persons has a concealed carry permit, all that can do is lead is too more violence on the street,” Peterson said.
He added, “Then when a police officer arrives and he sees two citizens confronting each other with weapons, he or she has to make a split decision.” However, Phelps said his bill requires a person to declare that they have a weapon and show their gun license when confronted by an officer.
Phelps plans to call the bill for a floor vote later this week. The deadline for the House to vote on the proposal was extended until Friday. Phelps said he does not have enough votes to override a veto from Quinn, but he said support for the legislation continues to grow. “We haven’t gotten anything. This is one thing that we ask,” Phelps said, suggesting that passage of concealed carry might soothe some downstate voters who felt they lost the battle over recent bills that abolished the death penalty and legalized civil unions in the state.
A House committee voted today in favor of a proposal that would allow Illinois residents to carry loaded firearms, but Gov. Pat Quinn vowed to veto the measure if it ends up on his desk.
House Bill 148, sponsored by Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, would permit citizens to carry concealed, loaded handguns in public places, such as shopping malls, restaurants, parks and rest stops. The bill would bar carrying a gun in most government buildings, including schools. “It’s called concealed carry, but what is concealed and hidden from the public is a loaded gun,” said Quinn, who campaigned against concealed carry of firearms during his run for governor last November.
The bill would require applicants for a concealed carry permit to pay a $100 application fee, have eight hours of classroom firearm training, including gun range training administered by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board, and receive notice from the state about carry zones where individuals would be allowed to bring firearms.
Hiram Grau, director of the Illinois State Police, said that issuing concealed carry permits would require additional manpower from the department. “The demands of this proposed concealed law are going to put a huge burden on our antiquated FOID system. The applications are going to be coming in hot and heavy, and we’re just not prepared for that.”
Colleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said her group commissioned a statewide survey in March done by The Mellman Group, a Washington D.C.-based research firm, that found that 65 percent of Illinois registered voters opposed the idea of an individual carrying a concealed loaded handgun. “Concealed carry does not stop crime,” said Daley.
Quinn agreed, “To allow concealed, loaded handguns in the possession of private citizens in public places will not enhance public safety in Illinois; it will not reduce violence. Indeed, it will increase violence.”
Illinois is one of only two states without a law permitting the concealed carry of firearms. “I mean 48 other states can’t be wrong, and that’s not the reason we’re trying to pass this. We just think that law-abiding gun owners ought to have the right, their constitutional right, to do this, and we have two court cases on our side,” Phelps said .
Quinn said he received letters from presidents of the state’s public universities in strong opposition to the bill. The proposal comes after the deaths of five students at Northern Illinois University in 2008, where a gunman used a legally purchased a firearm.
After much opposition from universities, Phelps removed college campuses from the legal carry zones listed in his bill. “We’ve worked with every group that wants to work with us,” Phelps said. “The only group that wouldn’t meet with us was the city of Chicago because they are always going to be against this.”
Steve Peterson, deputy superintendent for the Chicago Police Department, said allowing individuals to carry guns could turn what would have previously been a vocal altercation or a fistfight into a deadly exchange. “Now, when the aggression becomes more and one or two of those persons has a concealed carry permit, all that can do is lead is too more violence on the street,” Peterson said.
He added, “Then when a police officer arrives and he sees two citizens confronting each other with weapons, he or she has to make a split decision.” However, Phelps said his bill requires a person to declare that they have a weapon and show their gun license when confronted by an officer.
Phelps plans to call the bill for a floor vote later this week. The deadline for the House to vote on the proposal was extended until Friday. Phelps said he does not have enough votes to override a veto from Quinn, but he said support for the legislation continues to grow. “We haven’t gotten anything. This is one thing that we ask,” Phelps said, suggesting that passage of concealed carry might soothe some downstate voters who felt they lost the battle over recent bills that abolished the death penalty and legalized civil unions in the state.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
House members call for opening union contracts
By Jamey Dunn
Gov. Pat Quinn should ask public employee unions to open their contracts early and find ways to reduce the state’s personnel costs to avoid drastic cuts to human services, according to members of a House committee working to craft a human services budget.
Chicago Democratic Rep. Sarah Feigenholtz, who heads the House Human Services Appropriations Committee, called on Quinn today to ask the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) if it would be open to renegotiating state workers’ contracts now instead of when they expire on June 30, 2012. “It’s like asking someone on a date; you have to pick up the phone. … Maybe there is an opportunity. You don’t know. Let’s try. Let’s try.”
House members voiced frustration that their hands are tied when it comes to personnel costs and resentment at being tasked with finding cuts to programs that would be both painful and unpopular.
Rep. Michelle Mussman, a Schaumburg Democrat, raised concerns that although that state cannot lay off any workers under a deal Quinn made with the unions last fall, it may have to make such deep cuts that the very programs they administer would be nonexistent. “This is an entire giant component that we have absolutely no control over. [Legislators] are asking to have a modicum of oversight of control. We would like be a player. … At this moment in time, we are supporting a network of employees, but we are cutting all of the tasks we are asking them to do. So we maintain a staff, but we have nothing for them to do if we cut all the programs that we are asking them to run.”
Feigenholtz said no area of spending is safe from cuts, and she would prefer to negotiate the unions than attempt to strong-arm them. “There will be shared sacrifice across the board. … I would much prefer that they be at the table, frankly. And I think a lot of members of this committee don’t want to just hack things off because that’s not how we should do things. We should get people to the table.”
Julie Hamos, director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, said that because union contracts expire on June 30, 2012, legislators should jump in and become involved with negotiations. “Julie, there will be no programs left by June 2012. …We have to pass a budget by June 1, [2011], so, as Elvis said, ‘It’s now or never,’” Feigenholtz responded.
The Department of Human Services planned its budget around Gov. Pat Quinn’s proposal, but under the House’s revenue estimate, which is about $1 billion less than Quinn’s estimate, Human Services Director Michelle Saddler said the department would have to cut 6.5 percent.
Saddler said the department cut its operating budget by 6 percent for the current fiscal year, and raises required by union contracts will cost the department about $47 million for Fiscal Year 2012. She said DHS cannot bear further cuts to overhead costs not related to union contracts.
Quinn’s budget calls for no state dollars to be spent on addiction treatment for patients not covered by Medicaid, and DHS eliminated all but “minimal” services to those who do not have Medicaid coverage. Under the governor’s proposed budget for next fiscal year, the department says about 26,000 people with mental illnesses would no longer get help paying for their medications.
Some committee members said that while the state does all it can to bring in federal dollars through Medicaid matching funds, they disagree with cutting off those in need of services that the federal governments won’t help pay for. “We didn’t agree that especially in cases of substance abuse and mental health that people who are non-Medicid, that they should be left in the gutters, in the streets,” said Rep. Patti Bellock, a Hinsdale Republican.
Rhetoric became heated when talk tuned to potential cuts deeper than the ones proposed in Quinn’s budget. In light of the additional cuts required by the House, the Department of Human Services may close the Illinois School for the Deaf and the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired, both located in Jacksonville.
Dr. Robert Kilbury, director of the Division of Rehabilitation Services at DHS, said the department had no choice but to consider the closures because of the House’s leaner budget plan. “We were asked to come up with approximately a $54 million cut in addition to the low level that the governor’s budget proposed,” Kilbury said. He added that in-home services would also see a cut that would kick 6,400 people out of the program. “If you’re wanting us to reduce the general revenue fund 6.5 percent from where the governor proposed it, those are the kind of proposals we’re going to be making.”
However, members repeated calls that the state should look to cutting the pay and benefits of union workers instead of closing facilities and cutting programs. “You must take me for a damn fool,” Greenville Republican Rep. Ron Stephens said to Kilbury. “I’m telling you to go back and look closer. Look at everything you can do. … I don’t know who is more vulnerable in Illinois. Tell them who they are. Bring in your AFSCME and have them stand before us and tell us that they are more vulnerable than the people at these [schools.]”
Anders Lindall, spokesperson for AFSCME Council 31, said: “It's wrong for politicians to demand unequal sacrifice from disability caregivers, child protection workers, correctional officers and other state employees who provide health care, human services and public safety across Illinois. These AFSCME members already reopened their contract to defer pay increases and take unpaid furloughs, and they pay the same taxes as everyone else. … Irresponsible politicians caused the state’s budget problems, and working people shouldn’t be punished for them.”
Gov. Pat Quinn should ask public employee unions to open their contracts early and find ways to reduce the state’s personnel costs to avoid drastic cuts to human services, according to members of a House committee working to craft a human services budget.
Chicago Democratic Rep. Sarah Feigenholtz, who heads the House Human Services Appropriations Committee, called on Quinn today to ask the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) if it would be open to renegotiating state workers’ contracts now instead of when they expire on June 30, 2012. “It’s like asking someone on a date; you have to pick up the phone. … Maybe there is an opportunity. You don’t know. Let’s try. Let’s try.”
House members voiced frustration that their hands are tied when it comes to personnel costs and resentment at being tasked with finding cuts to programs that would be both painful and unpopular.
Rep. Michelle Mussman, a Schaumburg Democrat, raised concerns that although that state cannot lay off any workers under a deal Quinn made with the unions last fall, it may have to make such deep cuts that the very programs they administer would be nonexistent. “This is an entire giant component that we have absolutely no control over. [Legislators] are asking to have a modicum of oversight of control. We would like be a player. … At this moment in time, we are supporting a network of employees, but we are cutting all of the tasks we are asking them to do. So we maintain a staff, but we have nothing for them to do if we cut all the programs that we are asking them to run.”
Feigenholtz said no area of spending is safe from cuts, and she would prefer to negotiate the unions than attempt to strong-arm them. “There will be shared sacrifice across the board. … I would much prefer that they be at the table, frankly. And I think a lot of members of this committee don’t want to just hack things off because that’s not how we should do things. We should get people to the table.”
Julie Hamos, director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, said that because union contracts expire on June 30, 2012, legislators should jump in and become involved with negotiations. “Julie, there will be no programs left by June 2012. …We have to pass a budget by June 1, [2011], so, as Elvis said, ‘It’s now or never,’” Feigenholtz responded.
The Department of Human Services planned its budget around Gov. Pat Quinn’s proposal, but under the House’s revenue estimate, which is about $1 billion less than Quinn’s estimate, Human Services Director Michelle Saddler said the department would have to cut 6.5 percent.
Saddler said the department cut its operating budget by 6 percent for the current fiscal year, and raises required by union contracts will cost the department about $47 million for Fiscal Year 2012. She said DHS cannot bear further cuts to overhead costs not related to union contracts.
Quinn’s budget calls for no state dollars to be spent on addiction treatment for patients not covered by Medicaid, and DHS eliminated all but “minimal” services to those who do not have Medicaid coverage. Under the governor’s proposed budget for next fiscal year, the department says about 26,000 people with mental illnesses would no longer get help paying for their medications.
Some committee members said that while the state does all it can to bring in federal dollars through Medicaid matching funds, they disagree with cutting off those in need of services that the federal governments won’t help pay for. “We didn’t agree that especially in cases of substance abuse and mental health that people who are non-Medicid, that they should be left in the gutters, in the streets,” said Rep. Patti Bellock, a Hinsdale Republican.
Rhetoric became heated when talk tuned to potential cuts deeper than the ones proposed in Quinn’s budget. In light of the additional cuts required by the House, the Department of Human Services may close the Illinois School for the Deaf and the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired, both located in Jacksonville.
Dr. Robert Kilbury, director of the Division of Rehabilitation Services at DHS, said the department had no choice but to consider the closures because of the House’s leaner budget plan. “We were asked to come up with approximately a $54 million cut in addition to the low level that the governor’s budget proposed,” Kilbury said. He added that in-home services would also see a cut that would kick 6,400 people out of the program. “If you’re wanting us to reduce the general revenue fund 6.5 percent from where the governor proposed it, those are the kind of proposals we’re going to be making.”
However, members repeated calls that the state should look to cutting the pay and benefits of union workers instead of closing facilities and cutting programs. “You must take me for a damn fool,” Greenville Republican Rep. Ron Stephens said to Kilbury. “I’m telling you to go back and look closer. Look at everything you can do. … I don’t know who is more vulnerable in Illinois. Tell them who they are. Bring in your AFSCME and have them stand before us and tell us that they are more vulnerable than the people at these [schools.]”
Anders Lindall, spokesperson for AFSCME Council 31, said: “It's wrong for politicians to demand unequal sacrifice from disability caregivers, child protection workers, correctional officers and other state employees who provide health care, human services and public safety across Illinois. These AFSCME members already reopened their contract to defer pay increases and take unpaid furloughs, and they pay the same taxes as everyone else. … Irresponsible politicians caused the state’s budget problems, and working people shouldn’t be punished for them.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
