Silent Treatment

Even in the heated times in which we find ourselves, I want to give credit where credit is due. To the Governor. Governor Blagojevich.

The Governor today vetoed SB1463, legislation that would have mandated a moment of silence in schools, a moment of silence which is now a permissive option left up to the decision of local school officials.

Only one member of the Senate, Dan Rutherford, had the wherewithal to vote against the bill in that chamber, and if memory strikes me correctly, I was the only House member to speak against the bill in debate in our chamber, although to their credit, about two dozen House members refrained from supporting the bill.

I could write at some length as to why I found some fundamental flaws in what I would trust is well-intentioned legislation, but I doubt that I could put do it as effectively as the late Justice Seymour Simon did:

True, a child could silently recite a poem or count sheep (during a classroom moment of silence). However, that is not the point. It is the government-sanctioned and government-enforced religious purpose that is forbidden by our Constitution. So long as the purpose of the silence is to permit prayer, that purpose helps to establish religion, to break down the barriers between church and state and to undermine our precious religious freedoms. Even silence highlights the non-participant as different. The child who does not join the silence is singled out. Also, many religions have a format for prayer. Muslims kneel on a prayer rug facing Mecca. Catholics sometimes kneel. Many Protestants bow their heads. The moment of silence can end up with children acting in different ways to conduct their prayers, again causing some to feel different than their classmates. Like organized vocal prayer, an organized period of silent prayer will carry the sanction of the school authorities, the participation of the government in what should be strictly private activity. The minute of silence is dangerous in itself, but even scarier is the possibility that its advocates will use it as only the first step toward required, organized vocal prayer in the public schools....the late Illinois Supreme Court Justice Seymour Simon, 1995

To read the thoughts of several other prominent individuals more eloquent than me, take a look at Eric Zorn's post on this issue from earlier this year.

It would have been easy for the Governor to go along with the overwhelming number of legislators who supported this issue, but he held the line where it needed to be held. He did the right thing. And I give him full credit for doing so.

Not So Fast

Just when you thought that it couldn't get any stranger, this happens. The Governor has now gone to court to force Speaker Michael Madigan to hold special sessions when the governor calls one. The gist of the suit is that the Governor wants a judge to tell the Speaker to quit telling members not to come to Springfield when there's nothing for them to do. I swear I'm not making this up.

The suit strikes me as the equivalent of a kid telling his mom to tell his brother to quit calling him names.

Without even reviewing the relevant case law, I will tell you that I think that the suit has more holes in it than Bill Buckner's glove. The Speaker has no more authority to force members to stay home than he does to compel them to appear in Springfield.

In a brave defense of the suit, Rebecca Rausch pontificated that:

"It is imperative that (the governor's authority to call special sessions) is preserved and honored," she wrote in an e-mail to sj-r.com. "After lawmakers failed to follow the governor's special session proclamations to address serious issues like funding for the CTA, RTA, and downstate mass transit, we asked the court to confirm the governor's authority."

Hmmm, sounds reasonable enough. Until you look at the Special Sessions that the Governor has called so far this year:

Aug. 13, 2007 Chicago Transit Authority funding

Aug. 12, 2007 One-month budget, health protection grants

Aug. 12, 2007 Statewide transit funding

Aug. 11, 2007 One-month budget, community health centers

Aug. 5, 2007 One-month budget, home health program

Aug. 4, 2007 One-month budget, renal disease program

July 30, 2007 One-month budget, hemophilia program

July 28, 2007 One-month budget

July 11, 2007 Gun legislation, assault weapons

July 10, 2007 Budget for supportive living program

July 9, 2007 Grants for sexual assault victims, prevention

July 8, 2007 Teachers and Judges Retirement Systems

July 7, 2007 State Retirement System funding

July 7, 2007 Child Support Administrative Fund

July 6, 2007 Pension funding

July 5, 2007 Pension funding

July 20, 2004 Abstinence Education Program

July 19, 2004 Teen Parent Program

July 16, 2004 New Americans Initiative

July 15, 2004 Trauma Center payments

July 14, 2004 Team Illinois program

July 13, 2004 Family Care fund

July 12, 2004 Children’s Place program

July 9, 2004 Pre-natal programs

July 8, 2004 Community youth programs

July 7, 2004 Homeless youth programs

July 6, 2004 Domestic violence programs

July 2, 2004 Fee-for-services initiatives

June 28, 2004 Department on Aging budget

June 27, 2004 Department of Natural Resources budget

June 26, 2004 Environmental Protection Agency budget

June 25, 2004 Transportation budget

June 24, 2004 Law enforcement, human services budgets

With a couple of minor exceptions, not worth noting here, while the Governor was quick to call these special sessions, he never actually thought about having anything for the Legislators to do once they got there.

Take the mass transit funding issue for example. A number of legislators (myself included), unions, transportation advocates and interest groups have supported SB572 as a prudent means of not only avoiding a transit funding crisis, but of providing reform and accountability for years to come. In fact, it's safe to say that it is the only substantive proposal with any tangible support on the table.

The Governor's response? "I'll veto it." His alternative that he wanted to have a special session about? Um, none.

You see, the whole idea of having a special session is to actually deal with a critical issue, like, oh, I don't know, mass transit funding, a capital bill, a BUDGET. You know, things like that.

But to call one solely as a means of trying to wear legislators down into submitting to unsupported legislative initiatives bastardizes the process to no end.

The Governor is right, the concept of special sessions is being blatantly abused - but not by the Legislature.

Twists and Turns - JCAR Update(s)

So in the latest, but not wholly unexpected, twist, the Governor today announced his intention to veto $500 million in 'pork and other non-essential spending' in order to increase 'healthcare security for half a million people.'

In my last post, I discussed my thoughts on member initiative projects, so I won't rehash that here.

Two things strike me as odd about this turn of events.

First, while the Governor clearly has the authority to line item veto spending measures, I do not believe that he has the authority to reappropriate those funds elsewhere.

One way that I think that he might try to do this (and I'm simply thinking out loud here, sort of) is via an agency reorganization. This would be an extraordinarily convoluted means of attempting to reach his goal, and I'm not sure that it would work in any event, but I just can't think of another means by which he could do it. (Another reason that this wouldn't make sense is that, if I am interpreting this section correctly, the House could nullify the Executive Order with a simple majority.)

For your reference, here is the Section that I am referring to.

SECTION 11. GOVERNOR - AGENCY REORGANIZATION

The Governor, by Executive Order, may reassign functions among or reorganize executive agencies which are directly responsible to him. If such a reassignment or reorganization would contravene a statute, the Executive Order shall be delivered to the General Assembly. If the General Assembly is in annual session and if the Executive Order is delivered on or before April 1, the General Assembly shall consider the Executive Order at that annual session. If the General Assembly is not in annual session or if the Executive Order is delivered after April 1, the General Assembly shall consider the Executive Order at its next annual session, in

which case the Executive Order shall be deemed to have been delivered on the first day of that annual session. Such an Executive Order shall not become effective if, within 60 calendar days after its delivery to the General Assembly, either house disapproves the Executive Order by the record vote of a majority of the members elected. An Executive Order not so disapproved shall become effective by its terms but not less than 60 calendar days after its delivery to the General Assembly.

(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

The other thing that I find interesting is in Sen. Jones position and statement. There was a reported understanding among the leaders to stick together on the budget vote and any subsequent veto overrides. So Emil's standing with the Governor on this issue today would appear to be an outright 180 degree flip on the other leaders.

Going back on an agreement is never good form, that truism is magnified exponentially under the dome.

More substantively interesting is the Senate President's statement in the press release:

“The Governor has said he would not sign a budget that did not include his priority of health care. The four leaders knew the risk of negotiating an operating budget without the Governor in the room – I suggest today that I understand why the Governor is making this decision and I commit to working with him to fund health care within the operating budget that is on his desk.” said Senate President Emil Jones, Jr.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that sounds like he is resigned to working solely within the present budget framework, by moving dollars around. It appears to signal a complete retreat from any significant new source of funding for healthcare.

There are two ways of looking at this. The first is that it was a Kafkaesque, but ingenious, way to put $500 million into expanded healthcare programs in our state. The second is that, if this is what the Governor truly wanted all along, he probably could have gotten it done in May. $500 million is a long way from the $8 billion GRT that he had thrown out there earlier.

Either way, there is sure to be enough spin on all sides of this latest development to create a new ride at the State Fair.

UPDATE - For those that don't know, I happen to be one of the members of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR). I have been advised that HFS will likely be filing rules for coverage expansion of both the 'Family Care' and 'Assist, Primary Care, Rx, Hospital' provisions of the Governor's plans. HFS counsel is maintaining that the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening and Treatment and Working Families Premium Assistance programs will not require rules, a position not necessarily shared by JCAR staff. Any expansion of All Kids would likely require new rules for Comprehensive Health Insurance Program.

When one looks at the members of JCAR, it's hard to tell how these rules are going to be received. Same fight, different battleground.

UPDATE - The update above is based solely on information provided to me by JCAR staff. In the interest of fairness, I want to point out here that I have also been advised that HFS is taking issue with the information as not being wholly correct. Not that HFS needs me to defend them, but I will say that I have known the Director and his immediate staff for quite some time and hold them in the highest regard. So for now, I'll simply let this issue play itself out and we'll see where it goes.

The Other White Meat

In response to the budget recently overwhelmingly passed by the General Assembly, Governor Blagojevich stated that, "It's got so much pork in it that if you were to hold the budget document itself, you'd probably be unable to hold it because it's so greasy."

I think that the Governor's statement is understandable in that the 'pork demon' is one that is easily sold to the general public.

But it's not really accurate. The concept of 'member initiatives' is rooted in the belief that legislators are best situated to know the local needs of their districts. To the extent that a legislator can direct funding for a laudable purpose that can withstand public scrutiny, I believe that it is a legitimate part of the budget making process.

The public scrutiny aspect is key to this argument. This year, 3 of the 4 legislative caucuses (HDem, HRep, SRep) listed all member initiatives as line items in the budget so that they can be easily viewed. In furtherance of this transparency, all of my projects are listed at the end of this post. My initiatives consist of funding for local schools, libraries, and a grant to the local YMCA, which does some great things in the district.

For the Governor to generalize all initiatives as 'pork' is misleading and duplicitous. This is the same Governor who gave $1,000,000 for a minor league baseball stadium in downstate Illinois 'on a spur of the moment decision'. And while that grant may be justified, I am sure that the Governor did not refer to it as 'pork' at the time.

In a related twist, and something that is no fault of the Governor's, earlier this year, I introduced, and passed out of the House, HB473, legislation that I worked on with Sen. Obama's office to provide transparency in state grants and funding. The bill is modeled on Sen. Obama's federal earmark transparency bill which has received widespread attention and acclaim. (The bill shows up as a Rep. Bradley bill because I transferred sponsorship in order to get around the bill limit.)

My legislation passed the House 116-0 and has languished in the Senate for months. Until last week that is.

That's when the Senate Executive Committee gutted the bill and reduced it to a shell. I asked the Senate sponsor of the amendment why the action was taken and was derisively told that they desperately needed the bill as a vehicle for budgetary purposes. (It was never used for that purpose. Surprise surprise.)

I find it incredibly ironic that legislation that I worked on with Sen. Obama's office would be eviscerated by the very chamber in which he used to serve.

In any event, I do not have high hopes that the member initiatives are going to survive the still-unfolding budget process. If they don't, I'll leave it to the Governor to explain to the schools near his house that the new books and computers that they need are simply 'greasy pork'. I just don't see it that way.

As mentioned above, here are the line items that I requested be placed in the budget:

Page 975, Section 144. The sum of $30,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue fund to the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity for a grant to the Lakeview YMCA for capital repairs and community room development.

Section 145. The sum of $25,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity for a grant to Chicago Public Libraries for the Lincoln Park branch.

Section 146. The sum of $25,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity for a grant to Chicago Public Libraries for the Lincoln/Belmont branch.

Section 147. The sum of $25,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity for a grant to the Chicago Park District for Lakeview High School campus playlot renovations.

Section 148. The sum of $25,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity for a grant to Chicago Public Libraries for the Wicker Park/Bucktown branch.

Section 149. The sum of $25,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity for a grant to Chicago Public Libraries for the Sulzer Regional branch.

Page 1066, Section 63. The sum of $25,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Lane Tech High School.

Section 64. The sum of $25,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Lakeview High School.

Section 65. The sum of $30,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Mayer School.

Section 66. The sum of $25,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Lincoln Park High School.

Section 67. The sum of $30,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Waters School.

Section 68. The sum of $30,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Prescott School.

Section 69. The sum of $30,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Coonley School.

Section 70. The sum of $30,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Jahn School.

Section 71. The sum of $30,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Hamilton School.

Section 72. The sum of $30,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Abraham Lincoln School.

Section 73. The sum of $30,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Agassiz School.

Section 74. The sum of $30,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Alcott School.

Section 75. The sum of $30,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Drummond School.

Section 76. The sum of $30,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Audubon School.

Section 77. The sum of $30,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Bell School.

Section 78. The sum of $30,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Blaine School.

Section 79. The sum of $30,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the Illinois State Board of Education for a grant to Chicago Public Schools for Burley School.

Legislative Primer

Given all of the questions surrounding the present status of budget negotiations, I thought that it would be helpful to provide a review of the procedural hurdles facing us at this point. Enjoy.

A Gentleman Legislator

When somebody first told me last night that Rep. Bill Black wasn't going to run again in 2008, it inexplicably hit me like a ton of bricks. Politics aside, Bill and I have agreed on a lot of things, disagreed on others, but we have always shared a reverence for the institution.

His theatrics have been fodder for journalists and visitors alike, but since I've been here, I've learned to appreciate his mastery of when to tone his rhetoric way up (way way up) or way down in order to achieve his desired result. I've seen him do and say things that wouldn't be tolerated from anybody else, but when they come from Bill, they take on a different character and have a different impact.

Bill's passion for his district has never been contrived. He has steadfastly fought for those issues that matter to the people he represents, and whoever it is that follows him will indeed have a tough standard to measure up to.

But what I admire most about Bill Black is his sincere respect for the process. He knows as well as any of us do that politics is an integral part of the process, but he never lets anybody forget that there is a process, a way of how things are supposed to be done in the Legislature, that is bigger than any of us.

Not a Democrat/Republican process; not a Chicago/Central Illinois/Downstate process; but an obligation to remember that this institution should prevail over the whims or agendas of the men and women who temporarily serve in it.

I sat with Bill in his office today, needing to know what could lead a man whose love for the job is so great to leave it, and I got the one answer that I knew it had to be. His family.

We talked of grandkids, and parents, and the realization that our lives keep ticking by with every passing session. And that the time has to come when you deserve to, need to, put your full focus where it needs to be. That lesson becomes that much clearer in a session like this one, with countless family plans having been canceled. It's no wonder that a number of veteran legislators have said 'enough', and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more to follow.

Many men and women have served in the Illinois House over the years. Only a handful of them have made any meaningful impact. Bill Black is in that handful. I've tried to learn a lot from Bill, and if I've only taken away a fraction of it, I'll be a better legislator for having served with him. The Illinois House is a better place for having had him in it.