Budget not the only thing in limbo

By Hilary Russell
Just as the state’s operating budget is in limbo with five days left in the fiscal year, many substantive bills were left in the lurch at the end of the regularly scheduled spring session. The following is a list of measures that Illinois Issues magazine covered in our monthly “legislative checklist” throughout the spring. See the full list in the July/August print edition. In the meantime, here is a list of bills that stalled but that could come up in this fall’s or next spring’s legislative sessions:



HJRCA 31 The constitutional amendment sponsored by Rep. Jack Franks, a Morengo Democrat, would give voters the option to remove a sitting governor from office. The resolution would require voters to decide whether they wanted to change the state’s Constitution to include a so-called “recall” provision. The bill passed the House, but it didn’t get called for a final vote in the Senate. Senate President John Cullerton recently said he would not call the measure for a vote until Gov. Pat Quinn signed another ethics reform measure, HB 7, which would cap the amount individuals, businesses and political organizations could contribute to candidates. Franks’ recall measure doesn’t have to be approved until May 2010, and he said he expects that it would pass without problems before then.

HB 2643, SB 1292 Newly hired state employees and teachers would receive less generous pension benefits than current employees. Quinn proposed the so-called two-tiered pension plan as a way to save the state money in the next fiscal year and to reduce the mounting pension liabilities in the long run. But public employee union members strongly oppose the idea and argue it ultimately won’t save the money projected by the governor’s office. The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Kevin McCarthy, an Orland Park Democrat, and Sen. Don Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat, stalled in both chambers.

SB 1381 A bill allowing the limited use of medical marijuana, sponsored by Sen. Bill Haine, an Alton Democrat, narrowly passed in the Senate, marking the first time in Illinois’ legislative history that such a proposal won approval. The clock ran out before House sponsor Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat, presented it to the full chamber. Lang said he didn’t have enough votes to pass it and that he plans to lobby for the bill and could call it in the future.

SB 744, sponsored by Sen. Terry Link, proposed opening new casinos in Chicago, Danville, Rockford and Waukegan, as well as adding gaming positions at existing riverboats and allowing slot machines at horse racing tracks. According to Link, a Waukegan Democrat, the gaming package could generate as much as $1 billion a year. While the Senate approved the measure, the House sponsor, Lang, said he chose not to call the bill and would like to make changes so the bill would not specify where the gaming facilities would have to be built.

HB 2234 would recognize civil unions and give same-sex partners some of the same legal rights, including power-of-attorney, as married couples. Rep. Greg Harris, a Chicago Democrat, sponsored the legislation. It narrowly passed out of committee but wasn’t called on the floor because, Harris said, he didn’t have enough votes to ensure passage. He added that new legislation in Iowa that now legitimizes same-sex marriage could help pave the way for passage of Illinois’ bill in the future; however, Harris’ civil unions measure would not be the same as same-sex marriage.

HB 397 redefines stalking. The measure amends the 1961 criminal code by defining stalking as a behavior intended to terrorize or endanger another person through intimidation or threats. Rep. Dan Brady, a Bloomington Republican, sponsored the measure. The bill stalled in the House. Brady said the measure is undergoing further negotiations between the state’s attorney’s office and the attorney general’s office. He expects to present it again during the 2010 spring session.

HB 2633, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Julie Hamos of Evanston, called for stricter rules to define how and when inmates in minimum- and maximum-security prisons were transferred to Tamms Correctional Center in Alexander County. Questions about the treatment and living conditions of the prisoners prompted Hamos to write the bill, which she said is on hold because a new director recently took over the center. She said she wants to wait to see what kind of changes will come about as a result.

HB 288 proposes that public schools could give students a few moments before class begins to observe a moment of reflection. The bill is sponsored by Rep. John Fritchey, a Chicago Democrat, and Sen. Bill Haine, an Alton Democrat. The moment of reflection would be determined on a school-by-school basis. Fritchey’s definition of a moment of reflection would replace the existing Student Reflection and Student Prayer Act, which requires every school to have a moment of silence during which students could either reflect on the day ahead or pray. Because the law lacked consequences for not observing the moment of silence, some schools observed it while others did not.

Controversy has surrounded the moment of silence issue because federal court deemed it unconstitutional to require public school students to pray during school hours.

The law invited a lawsuit. Fritchey, who voted against the original moment of silence bill, proposed the new version that would remove the “student prayer act” from the name and allow teachers to choose whether to honor the moment.

Haine said the role of the government is to encourage freedom of expression, not force it on individuals who may hold different beliefs, but he said he didn’t know if he could get enough votes for the bill to pass next session.

Read more...

Everything in limbo

By Bethany Jaeger, with Jamey Dunn and Hilary Russell contributing
Illinois’ human service providers, as well as other state contractors, remain in limbo as to whether they’ll receive state funding after July 1. The General Assembly finished its special legislative session this afternoon without sending a spending plan to the governor. Lawmakers aren’t scheduled to return until Monday afternoon (the Senate won’t be back until Tuesday), which some providers said would be too late. Providers, many of whom rallied at the Capitol yesterday, anticipate having to close their doors or lay off employees without a state operating budget in place by then.



“What’s going on right now is cruel, it’s cynical and it doesn’t need to be happening. And it should have been addressed this week,” Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said after the legislature adjourned. She added: “There is a lack of clarity, a lack of leadership, in terms of what is going on. And in the meantime, people are dangling in the wind thinking that their lives are going to be inextricably altered.”

She proposed enacting a temporary budget to keep state services going, uninterrupted, and to give service providers more predictability.

Gov. Pat Quinn continues to publicly reject the idea of a temporary budget and said lawmakers still have time to enact a full-year balanced budget within six days. But he said balancing the budget, which he projects will carry a $9.2 billion deficit, will require a two-year income tax increase to generate $4.2 billion. (Comptroller Dan Hynes calculated the deficit at $7 billion.)

Legislative leaders of both political parties have cast doubt on the governor’s ability to gain enough votes in each chamber to approve a tax increase by July 1, although House Minority Leader Tom Cross said a few of his members are leaning toward a tax increase if they see action on other efficiencies and long-term spending reforms first.

Senate Democrats maintain that they approved a version of a permanent income tax increase in House Bill 174, which never got called for a vote in the House. According to Sen. James Meeks, the caucus doesn’t want to give up on the idea of offering property tax relief and increased education funding. Meeks said a temporary increase would result in a permanent increase in two years. “Temporary should scream out to everybody saying, ‘In two years, they’ll be back.’”

There could be more immediate support for a short-term borrowing scheme. A plan backed by Quinn would issue pension obligation notes rather than bonds, which typically are repaid over longer periods of time with higher interest costs. The House advanced the plan, Senate Bill 415, today. It would allow the state to make its full contribution into the public employee pension systems and free up $2.2 billion to help plug the deficit.

“If we get $2 billion to help close the deficit, that’s a good thing,” Quinn said after finishing a series of meetings with all four legislative caucuses. “We’re making progress, but we still have $7 billion to go.”

The governor and all four caucuses appear to agree one goal: to reduce spending by another $1 billion. But they might disagree on how to do that.

Quinn said his administration could save about $125 million by mandating 12 unpaid days off, or furlough days, for state employees, including unionized workers. Layoffs also could be considered, he said, although he added that he wouldn’t pursue layoffs until after he and the General Assembly settled on whether the state would generate new revenues first. “Under our contract, we can lay off employees if we don’t have the money to pay them,” he said.

Anders Lindall, spokesman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, said union leaders already met with the administration last week and determined that furlough days and layoffs wouldn’t save significant amounts of money. Henry Bayer, Council 31 executive director, said last week that even if every state employee worked the entire year unpaid, the state would only save about $3 billion. Lindall added this afternoon, “Any number of furlough days would be an insignificant savings to the state but a very real reduction in services.”

Cross said his caucus agrees with the need to look for $1 billion in cuts and recommends moratoriums on programs, furlough days and salary freezes, as well as reduced travel budgets.

Capital and recall
Two other items on hold include the $29 billion capital construction program and a provision that would allow voters to decide whether they wanted to change the state Constitution so they could recall the sitting governor.

Quinn said he will not sign the construction program without an operating budget in place. Democratic Sens. Martin Sandoval of Chicago and John Sullivan of Rushville said the capital plan and the operating budget have nothing to do with one another. In a Statehouse news conference, they joined organized labor groups to say Quinn has fallen through on his promise to immediately put people to work. "People are falling off the edge, losing their homes, having a very difficult time making ends meet, and he’s decided to hold the jobs bill as a political football until he gets his tax hike,” Sandoval said, citing the state’s 10.1 percent unemployment rate.

On the other hand, the Senate Democrats have held one of Quinn’s initiatives, House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 31: a recall provision. Senate President John Cullerton said yesterday he would not call the provision for a vote until Quinn signed an ethics package that would limit the amount individuals, businesses and political organizations could donate to candidates. However, the Senate hasn’t even sent the measure, HB 7, to the governor’s desk.

Read more...

House approves recall provision

By Jamey Dunn, with Hilary Russell contributing
Illinois voters could have the chance to vote on whether they want authority to boot the governor from office, thanks to a measure that passed the House Saturday.



The House approved a similar effort last year after frustration from then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s alleged corruption scandals. But it stalled in the Senate.

This year’s measure, Constitutional Amendment 31, would allow voters to cast their ballots on whether they want to change the state Constitution to include a so-called recall provision.

Many said that the provision should include the ability to recall all constitutional officers. Franks said he would like to add that later, but in the wake of the alleged Blagojevich scandal, he wanted to give voters a way to address corruption in the governor’s office.

“I firmly believe if we’d had it during the last administration, we’d have used it,” he said. Franks added that he thinks the legislature would have never removed Blagojevich from office had he not been indicted.

Gov. Pat Quinn Quinn said a recall provision would make the legislature accountable because if a corrupt politician had to be removed, the General Assembly would have to sign on to the effort, along with voters.

The requirement to have legislators sign off on recall drew the most ire from Republicans. They said that making voters get lawmakers’ approval takes the power away from the people.

Republicans said they want Franks to hold the bill and negotiate some changes. Franks’ measure would not need to be approved until six months before the general election to get on the 2010 ballot. But Franks said it could be called in the Senate after the midnight deadline Sunday, when the legislature adjourns.

Here are some numbers associated with the recall process laid out in the bill:

• A governor must be in office for 6 months before the recall process is started.
• 20 House members and 10 Senate members from both parties would have to sign off on an initial recall proposal from citizens.
• Once legislators approved the measure to put the question on the ballot, individuals seeking to remove the governor would have 150 days to round up the signatures to put the question of whether to remove the governor before voters. They would need a number of signatures equal to 15 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. For instance, Franks said the number of signatures currently needed would be 750,000 based off of the 2006 election.
• There must be at least 25 different counties with 100 signatures each.
• This version of the bill would only apply to the governor’s position, and it contains new safeguards intended to prevent abuse of the power. These new aspects came under fire from House Republicans.

Read more...

Recall returns, other reforms coming

By Bethany Jaeger and Jamey Dunn
The legislature continues to advance measures that would try to prevent the alleged wrongdoing by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich from going on long enough for a federal indictment to intervene.


Rep. Jack Franks, a Woodstock Democrat and longtime Blagojevich critic, revived his effort to change the state Constitution so voters could “recall” elected officials. The effort failed last year. This time, however, he’s calling for a constitutional amendment that would only focus on allowing voters to recall the governor, not other statewide officeholders or legislators.

Franks called it a first step and said that recall should only be used in extreme situations, describing recall authority as a “nuclear option” to remove corrupt or inept officials. He pointed to 18 other states that have some version of a recall provision, but it’s only been used twice in recent history, the most recent in California in 2003.

The bill is scheduled for a committee hearing tomorrow morning. We’ll have more then.

Sen. Susan Garrett, a Lake Forest Democrat, also is sponsoring a measure to increase transparency in the way the governor appoints people to boards and commissions. While Gov. Pat Quinn’s office already published a Web site listing all appointments, Garrett’s bill, SB 1602, would aim to increase transparency, prevent conflicts of interest and “ensure the process isn’t dominated by political insiders.” She referred to several Blagojevich appointments involved in the ongoing federal investigation of using public office for private gain.

Both Franks and Garrett said the legislature continues to advance reform measures not addressed by Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission. Franks said the panel did good work, “but by no means is it all inclusive or the only reasonable voice.”

The commission did not make a specific recommendation, for instance, about whether to let voters recall elected officials. Commissioner Patrick Collins previously said the group only gave recommendations that received unanimous support, and recall was not unanimous but deserved additional consideration.

One area the commission did make specific recommendations was campaign finance. While last week’s attempt to debate so-called contribution limits soured, another attempt could be made as soon as tomorrow. Sen. Don Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat, went as far to say he expects some form of contribution caps to pass both chambers tomorrow. The process is expected to start with a Senate committee hearing in the afternoon.

Harmon has been negotiating a compromise with lawmakers and the Illinois Reform Commission. He said there is “if not broad agreement, at least broad acceptance” of $5,000 contribution limits for individual donors. That’s a more lenient limit than the $2,400 cap recommended by the commission. But the bigger sticking point, according to Harmon, is whether to limit the amount statewide political parties can donate to their candidates.

But a statement from House Speaker Michael Madigan today made it seem as though that issue may be close to a resolution among Democrats.

A public TV program called Illinois Lawmakers reported that Madigan said he and Senate President John Cullerton have come to an agreement on capping the amount of money political parties can transfer to candidates’ campaign committees. Both leaders have withheld their support of the idea in the past.

“We are moving in the right direction.” Madigan said. “There should be caps on contributions. There should be caps on transfers between committees.”

FOIA rewrite advances
One area where lawmakers did strike a compromise with competing versions is strengthening the Freedom of Information Act and the Open Meetings Act.

The Illinois Press Association and the Illinois Attorney General expressed disappointment with a watered down version last week, but both enthusiastically supported the version that won House approval today. “This bill did not have everything we wanted, but we were very happy with this bill,” said David Porter, spokesman for the Illinois Press Association.

Senate Bill 189 would increase the standard for public bodies to proving a requested document is exempt from the law. It also would shorten the time public bodies would have to respond to requests from seven business days to five.

One major change is that a certified “public access counselor” would have authority to review and determine whether documents should have been released under the FOIA, and he or she would be able to subpoena documents. The counselor could go as far as issuing binding opinions to resolve disputes and sue to enforce those opinions.

We’ll have much more in the next few days.

Read more...

Why Blagojevich Won't Resign

by Cal Skinner
So the Chicago Tribune runs a full page editorial Wednesday entitled,

Governor Blagojevich:
RESIGN

It will have as much impact as the editorials calling for a constitutional amendment allowing the recalling of public officials.

This governor is not rich.

He needs his pay check.

He has a mortgage and other household bills to pay.

His wife and daughters need health insurance.

And Blagojevich needs the mental health benefits of his health plan (although he is unlikely to use them unless his lawyer tells him to create a record of seeking help for mental instability).

His campaign fund had $3.6 million in the bank at the end of June.

But it owed $750,000 to Jim Thompson's law firm, Winston & Strawn.

Even if the Governor has raised a couple of million since, who thinks that will be enough to pay his attorneys?

So, anybody think he is going to leave office voluntarily?

Published first on McHenry County Blog.

Read more...

Shifts at the top

Update: Sen. Don Harmon, the Oak Park Democrat sponsoring the agreed upon ethics reform, said last night he hopes to call the measure in committee today.

Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson, a Crete Democrat, was replaced on the powerful Senate Rules Committee by Sen. Rickey Hendon, a Chicago Democrat, today.

The committee controls which pieces of legislation advance to floor debate and which are held.

Halvorson said she was surprised and that it wasn’t her decision, but she felt as though the move by Senate President Emil Jones Jr. would allow her to refocus on serving as majority leader in the last month of scheduled session when so many things hang in the air.

“The Senate president felt that it was a distraction because every little thing was taken out of context, put into somebody else’s context and was keeping us from doing what was important,” she said.

For the past few months, Halvorson received criticism for holding in the Rules Committee a constitutional amendment that would allow voters to decide whether to recall elected officials. A broader measure eventually was called for a vote but narrowly failed on the Senate floor. Halvorson also was called a roadblock to highly anticipated ethics reform that would ban state contractors from donating to the officeholders who grant the contracts. The ethics reform could come up for a vote soon, according to House and Senate sponsors who announced an agreement last week.

Halvorson said she supported each of those measures despite being on the opposite side of the issues from the Senate president.

“It’s no secret that I was for the recall,” Halvorson said. “I was for the pay-to-play legislation. I’m anti-pay raise. I think I was causing a few too many problems.”

Cindy Davidsmeyer, spokeswoman for the Senate president, added: “She needs to focus on the issues that concern her Senate district and not be responding to claims that are baseless. In deciding to take her off Rules, this will allow her to better focus on the issues in her Senate district.”

Davidsmeyer added that Halvorson's bid for Congress has nothing to do with the decision, although Halvorson said the "unnecessary" controversy over highly publicized legislation wouldn't have happened if she weren't running for Congress.

Halvorson faces Republican Martin Ozinga, president of a concrete and construction firm, and Green Party candidate Jason Wallace to replace Republican U.S. Rep. Jerry Weller in the district southwest of Chicago.

Note: The House rejected granting pay raises to its members this afternoon. The Senate must do the same for the raises not to take effect.

Read more...

Anticlimactic

By Bethany Jaeger
Illinois citizens will not have a chance to vote on whether the state Constitution should be changed to allow voters to recall elected officials, including judges. The state Senate narrowly rejected a measure, Senate Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 70, that would have placed the so-called recall amendment on the ballot in November. (See more here and scroll down.)

There’s little to no chance that the General Assembly can approve any measure to pose a constitutional amendment to voters this year, given that the deadline to put those questions on the November ballot is Sunday, May 4. Neither chamber will be back in session until May 5.

It’s been a series of dramatics since the House approved a narrower measure to ask whether voters should be able to recall only constitutional officers and state legislators (it's House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 28). The Senate hijacked that bill and “improved” it to include judges and local officials. Top Senate Democrats, however, opposed the addition of judges and withheld their votes Thursday. The measure failed 33-19, with 2 voting present. It needed 36 votes to pass.

Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson said it was a travesty that the Senate stymied both measures. “This is truly a sad day in Illinois, that we’re not giving people the opportunity to have a say in what most people would suggest to be just competent government.” The sponsor, Sen. Dan Cronin, an Elmhurst Republican, said after the vote that fear ruled the day. “The people who voted against this, this is about their fear of being held to a higher standard. The world’s changing. They need to change with it.”

Opponents, including Democratic Sen. Mike Jacobs of East Moline, said although he’s had some serious disagreements with the current governor, recall is not the way to go. “The notion of recall is better suited for cars than for the governor of Illinois,” he said during floor debate. “Forget recall. The governor of Illinois should do the right thing, and that’s resign.”

Read more...

Hell freezing over?

By Patrick O’Brien
An ethics reform package aimed at cleaning up state contracting practices, including alleged practices under the spotlight of a federal corruption trial of Tony Rezko, could make its way through the General Assembly very soon.

The so-called pay-to-play measure would ban political contributions to statewide officeholders from any business with more than $50,000 in contracts awarded by that office. The business’ contracts with the state would be canceled if they broke the law. Family members of the contractor also would be banned from donating to the officeholders.

Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson, a Crete Democrat, all but dared Gov. Rod Blagojevich to veto or alter the bill in an attempt to “improve” it, as he has with other legislation. “Let him try it,” she said a Statehouse news conference Wednesday. Chicago Democratic Rep. John Fritchey, the House sponsor, vowed that his chamber would override a veto, while the Senate sponsors said they would attempt to get enough votes but couldn’t promise them.

A deal is a long time coming. Lawmakers have debated this version of ethics reform for three years. But the measure gained momentum this year because of the Rezko trial, which includes allegations of exchanging campaign contributions for state contracts and jobs. It's also an election year. “There’s a good chance it may be snowing in hell right now,” Fritchey said of the timing.

Sen. Don Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat and sponsor, said the bill will be heard in a committee next week. He said Senate President Emil Jones, a Chicago Democrat and Blagojevich ally, wanted the bill “improved” even more but that Jones wouldn't stop the measure from advancing to the House. Fritchey said he expected the proposal to move soon.

Working for the weekend?
By Patrick O'Brien
The Illinois House could be in Springfield all weekend to approve a constitutional amendment that would give voters the right to recall elected officials.

House Speaker Michael Madigan said members could be in the Capitol until Sunday as they wait for the Senate to pass its own version of a recall proposal. If the House approves the Senate version by Sunday, there’s a chance it could still land on the November ballot for voters to consider. If the House changed the Senate version, they would miss the May 4th deadline to approve constitutional amendments in time to appear on this year’s ballot. (To be clear: The question on the ballot would ask voters whether the state should change its Constitution to allow a recall, not whether they should recall the current governor)

The Senate proposal would allow voters to recall elected officials, including local politicians and judges. It also would link the lieutenant governor and the governor, which Sen. Rickey Hendon said was because the two officeholders are elected in the general election together (although they're not considered running mates in the primary elections). Under Hendon's proposal, if the governor were recalled, the lieutenant governor would be, too. The House version, sponsored by Rep. Jack Franks, a Woodstock Democrat, is directed only at statewide officeholders, not local officials and judges. That measure is stuck in the Senate.

Read more...

Missed opportunities

Gov. Rod Blagojevich escaped what would have been a media frenzy today by sneaking around Springfield for the annual Governor’s Prayer Breakfast and, according to the first lines of his speech, holding another meeting in the governor’s mansion about a state capital plan. His office provided audio (coming soon) of the nine-minute speech, and spokeswoman Rebecca Rausch said he then met with labor leaders about capital. He was back in Chicago by noon. The Statehouse press corps didn’t know about the events until after the fact. The quick in-and-out allowed him to avoid reporters who would have followed his every move to ask him to respond to Tuesday’s news — a political insider pleaded guilty and indicated that Blagojevich knew of an illegal deal to exchange a high-level state job for campaign contributions.

Ali Ata, former executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority, pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators and fudging his federal income tax return. The federal probe is separate from but related to the case called “Operation Board Games,” involving Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s alleged influence in state business and campaign fundraising. Here’s that indictment, again.

Ata’s plea agreement indicates Rezko was instrumental in hiring Ata as executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority in exchange for his hefty contributions to Blagojevich’s political campaign. The state agency formed in 2004 and finances about $3 billion in projects for economic development each year.

The plea agreement said Ata met with Rezko and “Public Official A,” identified as Blagojevich, before Blagojevich was elected governor in 2000 or 2001 to talk about supporting his political campaign. They later talked about granting a state position in return.

Donations came in chunks as large as $25,000, as seen in Illinois State Board of Elections records. You can search all of Ata’s campaign donations here. Type in his name and scroll down to see his July 25, 2005, donation of $25,000 to Friends of Blagojevich.

In one conversation, Ata said he would accept a position within the administration, and Blagojevich allegedly said it had “better be a job where [Ata] could make some money,” according to the plea agreement. Ata allegedly was told he could head the Illinois Finance Authority as long as he agreed to report to Rezko. He officially was appointed in January 2004.

The plea agreement says Ata believed that he needed to please Rezko to keep his job. That involved donating about $125,000 to Rezko between 2003 and 2004, while he led the state agency.

Ata faces up to eight years in federal prison and up to $500,000 in fines. He’s fully cooperating with federal authorities.

Public reaction
The more that unfolds in the federal investigations surrounding the Blagojevich Administration, the more ears might perk up at the sound of “recall.” That would allow voters to kick someone out of office, but it requires a change in the state Constitution, either through an individual amendment or through a constitutional convention. Support for both could be growing, according to a survey by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Springfield. A convention would allow elected delegates to rewrite the entire state Constitution. And a majority of the public would have to approve the new charter.

Debate within the Capitol includes whether such emotional voting would lead to undesirable consequences in the long run. Whether the public likes or dislikes Blagojevich, changing the state Constitution to allow a recall of constitutional officers or state lawmakers — or any elected official, as proposed in the state Senate — could forever change the way elected officials behave. Supporters say that change is good because it would remind public officials that they always are accountable to the people who elected them. Opponents argue that change is bad because it would make public officials even more paranoid about voter dissatisfaction and, in turn, lead them to do whatever it takes to ensure they’re reelected.

For more information about a constitutional convention, see previous Illinois Issues articles:

November 2007 feature about Con-Con logistics, by Pat Guinane

December 2007 Q&A with Wayne Whalen, a delegate in the 1969-1970 Con-Con

Illinois Issues Blog entries about Con-Con

See more in the upcoming Illinois Issues magazine in the first week of May.

Read more...

Politics, politics, politics

By Bethany Jaeger
Dark shades blocked the sunshine from entering a packed committee room at the Capitol Wednesday, when a nasty political storm between Senate Democrats exposed reasons the legislative process has been so frustrating the past few years.

It’s interesting that the Democrats easily approved a constitutional amendment to allow a progressive income tax, potentially affecting taxpayers statewide. Yet, they spent two hours personally attacking each other while debating a constitutional amendment that would allow voters to kick them out of office in a recall election. The threat of losing office strikes a deep nerve.

Recall of elected officials
Constitutional amendment 28 The two-hour debate about a recall provision to the state Constitution was, at times, laughable at the same time it was inappropriately personal and egotistical. It’s all rooted in political vendettas and perception of power. More than once, Senate President Emil Jones Jr. had heated exchanges with Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, who publicly stated that the Senate was “up to shenanigans” and intended to kill the recall measure. Jones said that was wrong and disrespectful and called for an apology, which he never got. At another point, Sen. Iris Martinez, assistant majority leader from Chicago, said she would lead a recall effort against the Democratic sponsor, Rep. Jack Franks of Woodstock, because he supported her opponent in the last election.

Although dramatic, the back-and-forth banter did raise an important question: Which officeholders should be eligible to be recalled? The version that won House approval last week includes statewide officeholders — the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, comptroller and treasurer — as well as individual legislators. But it does not include judges and local officials.

Sen. Rickey Hendon and Sen. Donne Trotter, both Chicago Democrats, are changing the measure to include judges and local officials.

Franks, Quinn and Watson said after committee that they believed — and that it would be perceived — that the changes were intended to bog down the measure so that the recall provision wouldn’t have enough time to be approved by both chambers before May 4. Constitutional amendments must be approved by then to appear on the November ballot.

Trotter flatly denied that perception, saying, “I did not pick up this bill to kill it.” He added that he intends to make the bill “better” and that there’s a “sense of unreadiness” to advance the measure. That’s especially because the House sat on it from August until last week and left little time for the Senate to consider it.

So Trotter held the measure in committee, meaning it has to move through both chambers in the six session days scheduled before May 4.

Progressive income tax
Constitutional amendment 92 – The state income tax would change from the current flat rate — 3 percent for individuals and 5 percent for businesses — to a progressive rate that would increase with income levels. Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat and sponsor of the measure, described Illinois’ flat tax as an “obstacle” to addressing the state’s long-term problems of debt and retiree health care obligations. Sen. Michael Frerichs, a Gifford Democrat and co-sponsor, said the proposal is about “tax fairness.”

But the constitutional amendment would not set new tax rates or income guidelines. Those would be up to legislators to debate and put into law once voters approved the change to the state Constitution.

Sen. Christine Radogno, a Lemont Republican, opposed the idea of going to the voters right now for that reason. “We’re putting this question that has very broad implications to a body and a government right now that people don’t have confidence in, and they have no control over the outcome of this process once it starts,” she said.

Business groups oppose the measure.

Ethics reform
HB 824 The Senate committee unanimously approved a measure to ban so-called pay-to-play politics, or trading campaign contributions for state contracts. Like a House version (HB 1) that received unanimous support last year, the Senate measure would prohibit businesses from donating to political campaigns of officeholders whose offices grant the contracts. It also would ban political contributions to candidates for the office that would grant the contract, as well as contributions to statewide political parties that can fund the officeholders. Stronger disclosure provisions would require companies with state contracts worth more than $50,000 to report political contributions to the Illinois State Board of Elections.

Sen. Debbie Halvorson, a Crete Democrat and congressional candidate, has taken some heat in the press for not allowing the House version to move in the Senate. She said during committee, “Our frustration has been that nobody believes that anybody really wants true reform, which is absolutely not true. We want it. We’re going to get it.” She said she believed this version could win approval by both chambers.

Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson of Greenville wasn’t so confident, saying politics between the two chambers could prevent any ethics reform from being enacted. Radogno, the deputy minority leader, added that a more comprehensive measure that includes pension reforms also sits dormant even though it already worked through the House and the Senate. But it can’t move to the governor’s desk until the Senate approves the same language as the House.

Harmon said the House sponsor, Rep. John Fritchey, indicated they could compromise to ensure both chambers approve the same language. That wasn’t enough for Radogno. “The issue isn’t about compromise,” she said. “The issue isn’t about coming up with a good bill. Both chambers have done that independently. The issue is procedural and the gamesmanship that’s going on there, where we keep lobbing bills — all good bills — back and forth across the rotunda.”

Smoking in casinos
SB 2707 Illinois’ riverboats would be allowed to let patrons smoke inside for five years under an exemption to the statewide smoking ban, as approved by the Senate committee on a vote of 7-6. Minority Leader Watson, the sponsor, said the exemption would help riverboats recoup millions of dollars lost after the smoking ban took effect. When riverboats lose money, the state collects less gaming tax revenues. Opponents argue that the decrease in gaming revenues is rooted in the slowing economy, not an effect of the smoking ban.

Reorganization of state agency functions
Executive Order 801 A Senate committee rejected Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s executive order that would combine functions of three more state agencies, intended to save about $121 million. He previously consolidated the procurement and human resource functions of the revenue and the corrections departments but drew criticism from labor unions, which fear more consolidations would result in job losses and loss of services.

Politics of health care
By Patrick O’Brien
A House committee approved a universal health care plan yesterday, but the proposal may have more to do with politics than policy and appears to have little chance of advancing.

The measure, HB 311 called the Healthy Illinois Act, seems headed for debate in the full House, however. House Speaker Michael Madigan and Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie added themselves as sponsors to the measure Monday.

Rep. Rosemary Mulligan, a Des Plaines Republican, said today that the issue is being used to put lawmakers on the spot before the November elections. “All of the sudden we find the speaker as cosponsor of this bill. It could be that they’re covering themselves with the public.”

Madigan previously criticized fellow lawmakers for not being able to make tough political decisions and cast tough votes. Health care has become an important issue this year, and efforts by Gov. Rod Blagojevich to expand the state’s programs have met resistance from courts and from lawmakers.

The health care plan that advanced out of committee Tuesday, however, would constitute a much larger expansion of health care than the governor’s proposals. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Mary Flowers, a Chicago Democrat, would abolish private ownership of for-profit hospitals.

Nicholas Skala of Physicians for a National Health Plan said the plan would combine taxpayer money with employer contributions and a payroll tax to fund the system. The cost is unknown, but supporters said it would help lower costs and eliminate administrative waste. The system would absorb all health care spending in the state, which was last measured at $64 billion in a 2000 study.

After sitting on the measure since last January, Flowers said she brought the proposal to the committee because of health care horror stories in her district.

Read more...

Recall measure could drag down Quinn legacy

I’m going to tick off a lot of people with this statement, but I have always considered the concept of a “recall” election to be one of the most Un-American things permitted in U.S. politics.

I always took a bit of pride in my home state of Illinois for not succumbing to the silliness of allowing people to un-do the results of a perfectly good electoral system.

Now, the people who couldn’t defeat Rod Blagojevich on Election Day in ’02 or ’06 want the possibility of ambushing the Illinois governor with special elections at their whim to try to undo the will of the majority of Illinoisans – who actually voted for this goof to be guv.

The Chicago Tribune is trying to throw the muscle of its editorial page behind the concept, which doesn’t surprise (or concern) me all that much. What really bothers me is that the lieutenant governor, Pat Quinn, is giving the ridiculous recall concept his backing.

He is supportive of the measure pending in the General Assembly that would allow for people to call for new elections, if they could get significant support on petitions. It also would provide for an immediate replacement election (so no, Pat isn’t calling for a recall, just so he could move up to the gubernatorial post).

I will be the first to agree that there is a high level of discontent with the political performance of Blagojevich – more so than just the usual malcontents who want to “throw the bums out of office” regardless of whom the bums actually are.

But I honestly believe the American Way of doing things would be for these people to focus their attention on the next Illinois government elections in 2010. Get yourself organized and put up a credible candidate who can challenge Blagojevich.

If the level of discontent with Rod is truly as high as they want to believe it is, they should be able to defeat him. If they can’t, then they should quit whining like sore losers.

All too often, the people in states where recalls are permitted who screech the loudest are the sore losers who are just too miffed that a majority of the public didn’t agree with them on Election Day.

And in the cases where a government official turns out to be a political mope, I happen to believe that people tend to get the quality of public officials they deserve. Maybe the majority of us who voted for Blagojevich (including myself, both times) deserve this.

My observations are that the people pushing the hardest for a recall provision in Illinois law are those Republican followers from rural Illinois who have seen how the Land of Lincoln has turned Democrat in recent years. They want to come up with another way to get rid of a states chief executive who won’t cater to their demands over those of the bulk of Illinois.

With the condition the Illinois Republican Party is in now (virtually brain dead), I’ll be the first to admit that Blagojevich’s chances of winning re-election to a third term in office in the 2010 election cycle are excellent.

Even when they had a respectable candidate in 2006 (Judy Baar Topinka), the Republican political mechanisms have become so rusty they were unable to do anything significant to help her. A tainted Blagojevich was able to beat her easily.

Now some people are going to bring up (probably, they have been screaming all through reading this commentary) about the sleazy details that will come out of the federal corruption trial of Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who helped Blagojevich raise funds for his political campaigns and who helped pick some of the people who got government appointments during the Blagojevich era.

There have been people who for years now have insisted that Rod will wind up facing his own criminal charges for political corruption, and could someday wind up doing time himself in a federal penitentiary.

To my mindset, that is not a good enough reason to whack the people of Illinois with the concept of a recall election. If it turns out that Blagojevich truly has done something seriously illegal, Illinois law already contains provisions for impeachment.

For those people who will argue that the standards required to impeach and convict a public official to remove him from office are too high, I say, “So what?”

It is supposed to be hard to remove a public official from a government post. The burden of proof ought to be on the accuser, not the politico. This is a Democracy we have in Illinois, where the results of an election of the people, by the people and for the people (remember the Constitution?) ought not to be cancelled out just because a few individuals in our society are sore losers.

Just think of how ridiculous the spectacle would be if all the malcontents of our society were to decide to want a recall of President Bush. It serves us right for voting for him twice (or voting for him once and allowing the Supreme Court to pick him the other time).

Actually, we don’t have to imagine how pathetic the concept of recall elections are in actual practice. We saw for ourselves a few years ago in California, when voters there got worked up by the malcontents and went along with the whim of dumping Grey Davis.

As if replacing him with actor Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn’t silly enough, we got to endure the spectacle of a special election with more than 100 candidates – and not a single legitimate pick in the batch. If I had been a Californian back then, I may very well have voted for Gary Coleman just as a protest of allowing electoral politics to devolve into a circus.

Yet this is the direction that Quinn would like to take our fine state. Here’s hoping that the Statehouse observers are correct in saying that the recall measure will never come up for a vote in the Illinois Senate. If true, then Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, will have performed a great service on behalf of all the people of Illinois – even though some will be too blind to realize it.

Quinn is among the blind. During an appearance earlier this week on WTTW-TV’s “Chicago Tonight” program, the lieutenant governor insisted that a recall measure is necessary to ensure good government. In reality, it is more likely to cause chaos by making it easier for a disgruntled minority to wreck havoc on the majority.

What is sad is that Quinn is the man who already has earned his place in the Illinois history books for leading the effort that slashed the Illinois House of Representatives from 177 individuals to 118.

That move benefited politics by eliminating excess politicos, particularly those who were only managing to get elected because state law required every district to have officials form each major political party (Republicans in Chicago, Democrats or Independents in rural Illinois).

The people who got dumped from the Legislature in the “cutback amendment” were those who didn’t have the support of the constituents they allegedly represented. The old way of compiling a Legislature created the illusion of bipartisanship, whereas the current way is probably more honest to the feelings of the people.

By pushing for a recall, Quinn threatens to undo the good he accomplished back in 1981. Pat needs to quit while he’s ahead, or else he threatens to reinforce the image that political observers joke about – the egomaniac who just loves to have press conferences while standing in the shadow of the Statehouse statue of Abraham Lincoln.

-30-

Originally posted at http://www.ChicagoArgus.blogspot.com/

Read more...

Blagojevich ally angrily criticizes House recall amendment

I'm surprized that the Tribune would actually print this article on their online edition let alone in their newspapers. Someone was bound to oppose this even if the governor himself is for it although if it ever gets thru the main person it will affect is the governor himself.

Tensions flared Wednesday as a top ally to Gov. Rod Blagojevich angrily used an expletive on the House floor while condemning a plan that would allow voters to oust the governor and other top officials.

The rare outburst came as lawmakers discussed a proposed constitutional amendment that would let voters recall constitutional officers and state legislators.

Some of the amendment's backers have made clear it's aimed at Blagojevich, whose fighting with lawmakers from both parties has caused major gridlock on key issues during the past year.

Rep. Jay Hoffman, a Collinsville Democrat and Blagojevich's House floor leader, called the amendment unnecessary and said lawmakers should focus on issues such as health care expansion and a statewide construction program.

"End the cycle of finger-pointing," Hoffman said. "Stop the bullsh*t!"

I changed the i in that last word so I won't get myself in trouble if this was my own blog I would actually post that. Anyway perhaps Rep. Hoffman should worry less about this recall effort and help his Governor, the man he represents on the floor of the house, to pass and implement a capital plan and health care expansion. Otherwise we might have another reason to recall the Governor of Illinois.

Read more...

Jack Franks Dominates Springfield News Wednesday, But Fails To Earn Sun-Times Headline

Reading my Chicago Sun-Times at breakfast yesterday, I noticed two stories about Springfield.

One was of about State Rep. Jack Franks' committee hearing about the $1 million promised to Pilgrim Baptist Church after the landmark building burned down.

The million went to the unrelated private Loop Lab School run by convicted felon Chandra Gill, it turns out, which Governor Rod Blagojevich had to pardon for the school to get the money.

Franks got his name in the paper on page 4, but appears in the headline only as “Rep.”

A second article on the same page tells of Franks' amending his recall constitutional amendment to exclude judges.

But no headline credit for Franks again.

He deserves one and there it is right on top.

Franks and his father Herb go fishing with judges and retired judges.

Posted first on McHenry County Blog.

Read more...

Lawmakers: Can you follow the money?

By Patrick O’Brien
Lawmakers still don’t know why Gov. Rod Blagojevich gave a $1 million grant to the wrong organization. The administration sent Deputy Gov. Louanner Peters to take the grilling Wednesday before a House committee, whose members say there are more questions now than before the hearing.

Peters testified for more than an hour but provided little new information about the grant to the Loop Lab School in Chicago. The governor said that the money was supposed to go to rebuild the administrative offices of Pilgrim Baptist Church in Chicago after a fire gutted the building. The school was renting the office at the time.

Beyond a history lesson about the landmark building, Peters continually cited an ongoing investigation by the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity that she said prevented her from discussing the grant. She couldn’t say how long the investigation would take. She referred to John Filan, chief financial officer of the state, who oversees the department but who wasn’t there to answer questions.

Peters dutifully responded to every inquiry, mostly referring questions to the administration’s lawyers. Peters also compared the grant in question to the pet projects of legislators, saying there was little oversight over those projects.

The stonewalling was complete when Peters and another administration official raced out of the room after the hearing without taking questions.

It’s still unclear how the school, a separate entity from the church, ended up with money instead. The governor previously called it a “bureaucratic mistake” that was handled by two former employees.

Rep. Jack Franks, a Woodstock Democrat and frequent Blagojevich critic, scheduled the hearing. He said real estate documents show the property went into foreclosure two months after the school paid John Thomas $1.3 million for the second floor of the building. The Chicago Sun-Times reported, based on unnamed sources, that Thomas was an FBI informant in the current federal trial of Blagojevich insider Tony Rezko.

Franks questioned Peters on what he deemed inconsistencies in the governor’s account of the deal, saying the grant was fast-tracked and ignored obvious “red flags” in the school’s recent past. Franks said the grant never should have gone through because a cease and desist order related to a sexual harassment charge against the school was on record. There also were concerns over a felony conviction of a school administrator who the governor later pardoned.

The school currently isn’t operating.

Franks promised more meetings on the subject and requested a list of documents from Peters for a future hearing. “We need to find out if this was a mistake or if it was done on purpose,” he said.

CDB: “Time is money”
By Bethany Jaeger
At the same time next door, more House members heard that the longer it takes to approve a statewide capital bill, the more likely the state will have to pay top dollar for unanticipated emergency repairs to state buildings, including schools.

“Time is money,” said Janet Grimes, executive director of the Capital Development Board, which oversees construction projects for state facilities. “Prices have been rising by as much as 5 percent a year. The price for construction has risen 27 percent since the last time the state allocated funds for the school projects.”

The number of projects classified as an emergency has tripled since fiscal year 2002, she said. “At that time, 13 projects were handled as emergencies, totaling $3 million. And last year that tripled. So we had 40 emergency projects totaling $10.5 million ... It’s definitely cheaper, smarter and more responsible to maintain buildings, and the state simply hasn’t been doing that.”

The agency seeks $2 billion for its portion of the capital plan, but Grimes said it’s up to legislators to approve the funding source. So far, that's selling the Illinois Lottery or expanding gaming. Both are buried in politics, which promise to drag out the debate and leave public buildings waiting for a long time.

Franks: “Throw the bums out”
By Bethany Jaeger
Constitutional Amendment 28: If voters believe a constitutional officer or a state legislator is taking the state in the wrong direction, Franks, the Woodstock Democrat, says they should have the ability to recall that official and elect a replacement.

The so-called recall provision would require voters to approve a change in the state Constitution. The legislature has to approve Franks’ measure for a ballot to pose the question of whether to allow a recall. The Illinois House continues to consider Franks’ measure and changed it Wednesday to remove judges from the measure, but it still has a long way to go.

Eighteen other states have a recall provision, according to Franks.

Opponents argue that voters already have the ability to kick officials out of office. “It’s called an election, frankly,” said Rep. Al Riley, a Matteson Democrat, during debate. Rep. Jay Hoffman, a Collinsville Democrat, added that a recall provision could lead lawmakers to become even more paranoid that they would lose their seats for disagreeing with their constituents.

Franks said it’s an “extraordinary measure that shouldn’t be taken lightly” and isn’t meant to be used if voters simply hold a grudge against a particular candidate. He added that a recall provision is necessary to regain voters’ trust in government, particularly given the recent series of federal investigations into state officials, including the current and past governor. Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn supports the idea, and the governor has said he too would support a recall provision.

“They think that their officials are supposed to be corrupt,” Franks said. “They think that’s just how it’s always going to be. And they don’t have the ability to change it.”

Read more...

Since recall has been in the news...

For almost the past couple of weeks or so since the Tribune editorial I was going thru my blog archives and found a post mentioning that our Lt. Governor has spearheaded a movement to recall Gov. George Ryan when he was in office. So apparently this press conference wasn't the first time he has mentioned it.

So I suppose I can ask would any of you had recalled George Ryan if we had recall during his term? I could ask if you'd want recall right now or if you'd recall Gov. Blagojevich but I'm sure that has been done to death already.

Read more...

Removing a governor

If you haven't read this Chicago Tribune editorial yet, don't wait now. The Tribune believes that voters should be allowed to recall a Governor...

Should Rod Blagojevich remain as governor of Illinois?

He shows no inclination to resign from office. And while the state constitution does allow for his impeachment by the Illinois House and trial by the Senate, it's doubtful legislators could bring themselves to such drastic action. So the realistic question becomes this: Given the multiple ineptitudes of Rod Blagojevich -- his reckless financial stewardship, his dictatorial antics, his penchant for creating political enemies -- should citizens create a new way to terminate a chief executive who won't, or can't, do his job?

That is, should Illinois join the 18 states that give voters -- as opposed to lawmakers -- the ballot power to remove state officials from office?

The Blagojevich experience suggests that the answer is yes, Illinois should write a recall mechanism into its constitution. Having endured the Blagojevich era, we believe voters never should have to endure another one like it. They instead should have the power to recall an inept governor.

The National Conference of State Legislatures offers a succinct summary of how a recall provision would be useful in a predicament such as Illinois': "Proponents of the recall maintain that it provides a way for citizens to retain control over elected officials who are not representing the best interests of their constituents, or who are unresponsive or incompetent. This view holds that an elected representative is an agent, a servant and not a master." (The NCSL takes no position on whether states should have recall provisions.)

This serious mechanism is rarely used. Only two U.S. governors have been recalled. North Dakotans ousted Lynn Frazier in 1921. In 2003, Californians voted to remove Gray Davis and, in a separate ballot measure, selected Arnold Schwarzenegger to replace him.

Read more...

Is It Time For a Recall Amendment?

Given the Governor's high-profile bickering with state lawmakers, ongoing criminal investigations into his campaign, failure to resolve the state's energy rate crisis, and the fact that he sprung an $8 billion Gross Receipts Tax increase on the state without having given the plan a single mention during his multi-million dollar re-election campaign, one has to wonder how long it will be before a member of the General Assembly files a Constitutional Amendment to allow for the Governor's recall.

I'll admit, I was one of the many folks who found California's recall process a little chaotic and comical, and I'm not 100% sure that the same issues can be avoided here. It's also pretty clear that the stated reason for Gov. Gray Davis's recall - the California energy crisis - wasn't his fault, but was caused by the energy companies themselves.

Still, the real reason for Davis's ouster was that he was a self-centered, vindictive tyrant who couldn't get along with lawmakers, even from his own party. And it's not hard for even Democrats to make the case that Californians are much better off.

Sound familiar?

California's recall provision gives citizens 160 days to circulate petitions stating the reason for the recall -- which is not reviewable. The required number of valid signatures is 12 percent of the number of ballots cast in the previous election for the statewide candidate being recalled. In Blagojevich's case, that would still require more than 418,558 signatures.

A vote on the recall question would be held at the next regularly scheduled primary or general election, if within 180 days, otherwise on a date set by the Governor between 60 and 80 days from when the petition is certified.

The Governor would be removed by a simple majority of ballots cast and his successor would be selected by a plurality from a pool of candidates on the same ballot (no primary here).

Blagojevich and George Ryan present strong cases for at least giving voters the option of recall. Moreover, I think the mere possibility of recall ensures that the Governor plays nice with everyone else in the sandbox, and I have no doubt the Governor would be a little more ready to negotiate with lawmakers and sense greater urgency on the electric rate issue if a recall was hanging over his head.

What are your thoughts:

Should Illinois allow recall?

How should Illinois' recall provisions differ, if at all, from California's?

Do you think a Constitutional Amendment could garner the required 2/3 vote in both chambers? Who should sponsor it?

What grounds would you give for recalling Blagojevich?

Do you think a petition drive could garner the necessary signatures?

Would the recall succeed, and who would you like to see as Blagojevich's successor?

Read more...