Veto sessions can have a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personna. Some of those weeks can be calm and unassuming, while others can be rip roaring. This season evidenced both as the uneventful first week gave way to some major policy considerations in the second. Now, all eyes are looking toward January and newly-scheduled January session days that have been announced. The House is now scheduled to be in session from January 3-7 and on January 9, 10 and 11. The Senate has added January 4, 5 and 6 to their schedule. All January dates have been described by leaders as “tentative” but there’s little doubt that most of those days will be utilized. Then, it’s out with the old session and in with the new at high noon on Wednesday, January 12.
The huge unanswered question is whether there will another flurry of activity in January or whether there will be little if any “accumulation”. With the actions of this past week regarding major issues such as police and fire pension reform (approved), civil unions (approved), gaming expansion (passed Senate/needs House action) and medical marijuana (failed) the signs for January are pointing to a continuation of substantial policy considerations. Remember that the rules for enacting bills with immediate effective dates changes on January 1, with the exception of borrowing, to a simple majority (30 Senate, 60 House) allowing the majority party to control the agenda and do pretty much as it wishes, with borrowing a giant exception.
Since his November election was certified Governor Quinn has continued to push for his proposed 1% income tax increase for education. It has been met with resistance from many fronts – many Democratic legislators, including Speaker Madigan, who prefer to see a bipartisan roll call on any revenue enhancements; human services advocates who aren’t feeling the love and would like action to help clear up the severe backlog of state payments to agencies; and Republicans, who are not inclined to vote for new revenue under any circumstances and who demand budget cuts and major policy changes (i.e. Medicaid managed care) to even consider putting votes on bonding or revenue proposals.
There are two urgent items on the January legislative agenda that Democratic leaders must resolve before the new legislative session begins on January 12 – extension of the Emergency Budget Act and the stalled $3.7 billion in bonding authority to pay the state’s pension tab.
At the end of the spring session the legislature approved the Emergency Budget Act giving the governor the power to initiate emergency rules, allowed the governor to modify or terminate state contracts, and provided for interfund borrowing with interest. That law expires on January 9, the day before the governor takes his oath of office so Democrats will want to extend the provisions and they should be able to accomplish that without too much hassle. The borrowing part, however, is another story.
Last May the House approved borrowing $3.7 billion to make the pension payment. Since House Democrats do not have the three-fifths Democratic majority needed to approve it on their own, two Republicans were convinced to cross over and provide the needed votes. The Senate, on the other hand, does have a three-fifths Democratic majority. But, because two of the majority party members are adamantly opposed to borrowing they are going to have to convince one or two Republicans to cross over and provide a vote. So far, no deal.
At the end of the first veto session week President Cullerton created two special committees to study Medicaid reform and worker’s compensation reform. He wants them to report recommendations back no later than January 3 … in time for action to be taken when the legislature meets during that week. Republican Leader Christine Radogno insists there is no quid pro quo, but Democrats are desperate to find those 36 votes for pension borrowing. The first week in January should provide for some interesting watching. Speaker Madigan has mirrored Cullerton’s action and created similar House panels so expect some attempt to forge some wide-ranging agreement.
New Session Schedule
A sliver of a schedule for the new session has been released by the legislative leadership. After the January 12 legislative swearing-in ceremonies the General Assembly will take two weeks off to organize, appoint committees, and prepare for the transaction of legislative business. Regular legislative business and weekly sessions will begin on Tuesday, February 1. The remainder of the spring session schedule will be released in the near future.
During the two January organizing weeks a number of perfunctory sessions are scheduled. No formal business is conducted but these session days allow new bills to be formally introduced and read into the record so they can be assigned to committees and readied for action.
New Members
There have been a few legislative changes that have occurred as a result of the elections.
Sen. Dan Cronin has been replaced by Sen. Ron Sandack. Cronin was elected DuPage County Board Chairman.
Sen. Dan Rutherford has been replaced by Rep. Shane Cultra. Rutherford was elected state treasurer. Rep. Jason Barickman has been appointed to replace Rep. Cultra.
Rep. John Fritchey has resigned to assume his duty as a Cook County Board Commissioner. Rep. Ann Williams is his replacement.
Rep. Bill Black has resigned effective December 31. Representative-elect Chad Hayes will replace him.
Rep. Kevin Joyce resigned during the summer. His replacement, Rep. John M. O’Sullivan, will served until the end of the current session.
Rep. Richard Myers passed away on December 1. His replacement will be named before the end of the year.
A sheet is attached to this report that was compiled by the Illinois Municipal League that provides a background on the new legislators that were elected on November 2.
Campaign Contribution Limits Begin January 1
Illinois has been a wide open state as far as campaign contributions go, until now. Senate Bill 1466, approved in 2009, becomes effective on January 1 and provides limitations, for the first time, on individuals, businesses, unions, associations, and candidate and political action committees. There are limitations on political caucus committees as well, but those limits do not apply in general elections, only primary elections. The new law also makes reporting more rigorous and open.
A great deal of criticism has been levied on the limitation exemption for party caucuses in general elections. There is every expectation that this provision will not be changed and will remain as is, at least for the foreseeable future.
A separate chart has been attached to this report that provides a breakdown and synopsis of the requirements of the new Act.
Newly elected legislators
SB1466 Campaign Finance Reform Synopsis
Friday, December 3, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
All Politics is Local - review of election results
Reviewing the results of Election 2010 in Illinois it is striking to see how much the adage, “all politics is local” comes into play. Yes, there was the GOP wave that will send a number of new faces to far-off Washington, D.C. But when it came to local “backyard” races there was only moderate change and no apparently no shift in the balance of power in Springfield with Governor Quinn apparently on the verge of eking out a pint-sized victory and Democrats maintaining majorities in both the Illinois Senate and House. There was some shrinkage in the size of the majorities but when the dust settled each leader retained a comfortable margin.
A Walkoff for Quinn?
The Governor’s race, still unresolved, had to be the biggest surprise of the night. In baseball jargon, the new term for a home run hit in the bottom of the ninth inning to win a game is called a “walkoff”. Quinn may have done the political equivalent on Tuesday.
Since last summer practically every poll showed Quinn behind, albeit in a close race, including the last round of polls that were published last weekend. Whether it was President Obama’s visit to Chicago that motivated Democrats, or just a last minute decision by some voters to become participants, Quinn apparently has been able to “slide into home” safely. During the last primary election Quinn appeared on the ropes and his ability to “close” earned him a win. It appears that lightening may have struck twice.
Legislative Rundown
Initial results show that the Democratic majority in the Illinois Senate will drop from 37 to 35 … a result much better than expected just a few weeks ago when the GOP thought that they might be able to wrestle the majority. That would have been a long shot, at best. What did, however, look doable was a possible Republican takeover of the Illinois House where over 20 seats were heavily contested and where 12 were needed to flip the majority. In a year that everyone thought was reminiscent of 1994 when that turnover actually did happen, it didn’t. Democrats were prepared and, while they will lose six seats, they have maintained a very workable majority of 64.
The following lists the targeted districts in each chamber and the winners and losers. Districts that turned over from one party to the other are noted in green.
Senate Targeted Races By District (7): Net Democratic loss – 2 seats
10th –Sen John Mulroe (D) def. Brian Doherty (R) (DeLeo (D) vacancy) – Chicago Northwest
22nd – Sen. Michael Noland (D) def. Steven Rauschenberger (R) – Elgin area
31st –Suzi Schmidt (R) def. Sen. Michael Bond (D) – Waukegan area
40tg – Sen. Toi Hutchinson (D) def.. Adam Baumgartner (R) – Southern Cook/Northern Will
43rd – Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi (D) def. Cedra Crenshaw (R) – Joliet area
49th –William “Sam” McCann (R) def. Sen. Deanna DeMuzio (D) . – Carlinville area
52nd – Sen. Michael Frerichs (D) def. Al Reynolds (R) – Champaign/Danville area
House Targeted Races By District (21): Net Democratic loss – 6 seats
17th – Daniel Biss (D) def. Hamilton Cheng (R) (Coulson (R) seat) – Northern Cook County – Wilmette/Evanston area
36th – Kelly Burke (D) def. Richard Grabowski (R) (Brosnahan seat) – South Cook County – Oak Lawn area
37th - Rep. Kevin McCarthy (D) def. Jeffrey Junkas (R) – Southwest Cook County - Tinley Park/Orland Park area
43rd – Rep. Keith Farnham (D) def. Ruth Munson (R) – Elgin area
44th – Rep. Fred Crespo (D) def. Billie Roth (R) – Northwest Cook County – Streamwood/Hoffman Estates area
56th – Michelle Mussman def. Ryan Higgins (R) (Froehlich seat) - Northwest Cook County – Schaumburg area
58th– Rep. Karen May (D) def. Lauren Turelli (R) – Lake County – Highland Park area
59th – Rep. Carol Sente (D) def. Danile Sugrue (R) – Lake County – Vernon Hills/Buffalo Grove area
66th – David Harris (R) def. Rep. Mark Walker (D) – Northwest Cook County – Arlington Heights/Mt. Prospect area
69th Joe Sosnowski (R) def. Ray Pendzinski (D) and Daniel Lindsey (Green) (Wait (R) seat) – Rockford/Belvidere area
71st – Richard Morthland (R) def. Dennis Ahern (D) (Boland (D) seat) – Moline area
75th – Sue Resin (R) def. Rep. Careen Gordon D) – Morris area
79th – Rep. Lisa Dugan (D) def.. Nick Been (R) and George Ochsenfeld (Green) – Will County – Bradley/Bourbonnais area
85th – Rep. Emily McAsey (D) def. Maripat Oliver (R) – Will County – Lockport/Bolingbrook area
91th – Michael Unes (R) def. Rep. Mike Smith (D) – Canton/East Peoria area
92nd – Rep. Jehan Gordon (D) def. Jim Montelongo (R) – Peoria area
98th – Wayne Rosenthal (R) def. Charles Landers (D) v. (Hannig (D) seat) – South Central Illinois
101st – Adam Brown (R) def. Rep. Bob Flider (D) – Decatur area
102nd – Rep. Ron Stephens (R) v. Deena Dailey (D) – Southwest Illinois – Troy/Greenville area
104th – Chad Hays (R) def. Michael Puhr (D) (Black (R) seat) – Danville area
112th – Dwight Kay (R) def. Rep. Jay Hoffman (D).– Southwest Illinois – Collinsville area
Probably the most surprising legislative result of the night was Sen. Michael Noland’s re-election defeat of former state Sen. Steven Rauschenberger. Noland was given practically zero chance to win in a”wave” year, having cast some fairly controversial votes during his four-year term and running against a former very popular, “unbeatable” incumbent. Noland has had a reputation as a hard charging, indefatigable candidate. He proved it this year.
JCAR
The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) provides an important function by reviewing and approving all state agency rules. Membership on JCAR is made up of twelve legislators, with three from each legislative caucus serving. There is a total of six members from each political party so committee decisions are bipartisan. JCAR membership doesn’t change much from year to year so it is surprising that one-third of its membership will change in 2011 as a result of the election. Sen. Randy Hultgren (R) was elected to Congress, Sen. Dan Rutherford (R) was elected State Treasurer, Rep. John Fritchey was elected to the Cook County Board of Commissioners, and Rep. David Miller lost his bid for Comptroller. Replacements will be made by the respective legislative leaders.
Where Do We Go From Here?
How to balance a $15 billion budget will be the critical focus of the governor and the legislature during the next two, and possibly more, budget cycles. Will there be a more realistic opportunity for that to occur if Quinn does win? Probably, but that presumes that Quinn can get his leadership act together and be the adult in the room with the capacity to say no and to marshal his legislative forces. A Brady victory could make these decisions more difficult because if there was some realization after he assumed office that new revenue would be necessary Democrats would require that he get votes from GOP legislators, and that will be a herculean, if not impossible task.
What about the veto session? Will there be major decisions made in the waning days and hours of this General Assembly? Democratic legislative leaders will have to assess their prerogatives and determine whether there is any value in allowing the new legislature to begin with a clean slate. Major veto session decisions are not often easy because some losers and retirees lose their enthusiasm and may not even be in attendance. So, if there are going to be major undertakings in the next few months there will have to be a full court press to make sure that everyone is committed and that might be excruciatingly frustrating.
Will budget decisions in the legislature become more bipartisan next year? Also possible. But Democrats are going to have to let Republicans into the process, and Republicans are going to have to show a willingness to work toward solutions. When Governors Thompson and Edgar faced budget problems there was a willingness from both sides to find both a solution and the requisite votes to enact them. That has not been the case of late, and to cure the Illinois budget woes it’s going to demand bipartisanship.
A potential Quinn win, coupled with the Democratic legislative majorities and Supreme Court Justice Kilbride’s successful retention will allow the Democrats to become the first political party since the adoption of the 1970 Illinois Constitution to control the redistricting process from the beginning. Reapportionment had been a major underlying issue for the last two election cycles and will generally determine control of the General Assembly for the next ten years. Will the fact that reapportionment decisions have now become a fait accompli (if Quinn’s win is confirmed) cause legislative debate to become more tempered? That, too, is a possibility, although the odds may be long.
A Walkoff for Quinn?
The Governor’s race, still unresolved, had to be the biggest surprise of the night. In baseball jargon, the new term for a home run hit in the bottom of the ninth inning to win a game is called a “walkoff”. Quinn may have done the political equivalent on Tuesday.
Since last summer practically every poll showed Quinn behind, albeit in a close race, including the last round of polls that were published last weekend. Whether it was President Obama’s visit to Chicago that motivated Democrats, or just a last minute decision by some voters to become participants, Quinn apparently has been able to “slide into home” safely. During the last primary election Quinn appeared on the ropes and his ability to “close” earned him a win. It appears that lightening may have struck twice.
Legislative Rundown
Initial results show that the Democratic majority in the Illinois Senate will drop from 37 to 35 … a result much better than expected just a few weeks ago when the GOP thought that they might be able to wrestle the majority. That would have been a long shot, at best. What did, however, look doable was a possible Republican takeover of the Illinois House where over 20 seats were heavily contested and where 12 were needed to flip the majority. In a year that everyone thought was reminiscent of 1994 when that turnover actually did happen, it didn’t. Democrats were prepared and, while they will lose six seats, they have maintained a very workable majority of 64.
The following lists the targeted districts in each chamber and the winners and losers. Districts that turned over from one party to the other are noted in green.
Senate Targeted Races By District (7): Net Democratic loss – 2 seats
10th –Sen John Mulroe (D) def. Brian Doherty (R) (DeLeo (D) vacancy) – Chicago Northwest
22nd – Sen. Michael Noland (D) def. Steven Rauschenberger (R) – Elgin area
31st –Suzi Schmidt (R) def. Sen. Michael Bond (D) – Waukegan area
40tg – Sen. Toi Hutchinson (D) def.. Adam Baumgartner (R) – Southern Cook/Northern Will
43rd – Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi (D) def. Cedra Crenshaw (R) – Joliet area
49th –William “Sam” McCann (R) def. Sen. Deanna DeMuzio (D) . – Carlinville area
52nd – Sen. Michael Frerichs (D) def. Al Reynolds (R) – Champaign/Danville area
House Targeted Races By District (21): Net Democratic loss – 6 seats
17th – Daniel Biss (D) def. Hamilton Cheng (R) (Coulson (R) seat) – Northern Cook County – Wilmette/Evanston area
36th – Kelly Burke (D) def. Richard Grabowski (R) (Brosnahan seat) – South Cook County – Oak Lawn area
37th - Rep. Kevin McCarthy (D) def. Jeffrey Junkas (R) – Southwest Cook County - Tinley Park/Orland Park area
43rd – Rep. Keith Farnham (D) def. Ruth Munson (R) – Elgin area
44th – Rep. Fred Crespo (D) def. Billie Roth (R) – Northwest Cook County – Streamwood/Hoffman Estates area
56th – Michelle Mussman def. Ryan Higgins (R) (Froehlich seat) - Northwest Cook County – Schaumburg area
58th– Rep. Karen May (D) def. Lauren Turelli (R) – Lake County – Highland Park area
59th – Rep. Carol Sente (D) def. Danile Sugrue (R) – Lake County – Vernon Hills/Buffalo Grove area
66th – David Harris (R) def. Rep. Mark Walker (D) – Northwest Cook County – Arlington Heights/Mt. Prospect area
69th Joe Sosnowski (R) def. Ray Pendzinski (D) and Daniel Lindsey (Green) (Wait (R) seat) – Rockford/Belvidere area
71st – Richard Morthland (R) def. Dennis Ahern (D) (Boland (D) seat) – Moline area
75th – Sue Resin (R) def. Rep. Careen Gordon D) – Morris area
79th – Rep. Lisa Dugan (D) def.. Nick Been (R) and George Ochsenfeld (Green) – Will County – Bradley/Bourbonnais area
85th – Rep. Emily McAsey (D) def. Maripat Oliver (R) – Will County – Lockport/Bolingbrook area
91th – Michael Unes (R) def. Rep. Mike Smith (D) – Canton/East Peoria area
92nd – Rep. Jehan Gordon (D) def. Jim Montelongo (R) – Peoria area
98th – Wayne Rosenthal (R) def. Charles Landers (D) v. (Hannig (D) seat) – South Central Illinois
101st – Adam Brown (R) def. Rep. Bob Flider (D) – Decatur area
102nd – Rep. Ron Stephens (R) v. Deena Dailey (D) – Southwest Illinois – Troy/Greenville area
104th – Chad Hays (R) def. Michael Puhr (D) (Black (R) seat) – Danville area
112th – Dwight Kay (R) def. Rep. Jay Hoffman (D).– Southwest Illinois – Collinsville area
Probably the most surprising legislative result of the night was Sen. Michael Noland’s re-election defeat of former state Sen. Steven Rauschenberger. Noland was given practically zero chance to win in a”wave” year, having cast some fairly controversial votes during his four-year term and running against a former very popular, “unbeatable” incumbent. Noland has had a reputation as a hard charging, indefatigable candidate. He proved it this year.
JCAR
The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) provides an important function by reviewing and approving all state agency rules. Membership on JCAR is made up of twelve legislators, with three from each legislative caucus serving. There is a total of six members from each political party so committee decisions are bipartisan. JCAR membership doesn’t change much from year to year so it is surprising that one-third of its membership will change in 2011 as a result of the election. Sen. Randy Hultgren (R) was elected to Congress, Sen. Dan Rutherford (R) was elected State Treasurer, Rep. John Fritchey was elected to the Cook County Board of Commissioners, and Rep. David Miller lost his bid for Comptroller. Replacements will be made by the respective legislative leaders.
Where Do We Go From Here?
How to balance a $15 billion budget will be the critical focus of the governor and the legislature during the next two, and possibly more, budget cycles. Will there be a more realistic opportunity for that to occur if Quinn does win? Probably, but that presumes that Quinn can get his leadership act together and be the adult in the room with the capacity to say no and to marshal his legislative forces. A Brady victory could make these decisions more difficult because if there was some realization after he assumed office that new revenue would be necessary Democrats would require that he get votes from GOP legislators, and that will be a herculean, if not impossible task.
What about the veto session? Will there be major decisions made in the waning days and hours of this General Assembly? Democratic legislative leaders will have to assess their prerogatives and determine whether there is any value in allowing the new legislature to begin with a clean slate. Major veto session decisions are not often easy because some losers and retirees lose their enthusiasm and may not even be in attendance. So, if there are going to be major undertakings in the next few months there will have to be a full court press to make sure that everyone is committed and that might be excruciatingly frustrating.
Will budget decisions in the legislature become more bipartisan next year? Also possible. But Democrats are going to have to let Republicans into the process, and Republicans are going to have to show a willingness to work toward solutions. When Governors Thompson and Edgar faced budget problems there was a willingness from both sides to find both a solution and the requisite votes to enact them. That has not been the case of late, and to cure the Illinois budget woes it’s going to demand bipartisanship.
A potential Quinn win, coupled with the Democratic legislative majorities and Supreme Court Justice Kilbride’s successful retention will allow the Democrats to become the first political party since the adoption of the 1970 Illinois Constitution to control the redistricting process from the beginning. Reapportionment had been a major underlying issue for the last two election cycles and will generally determine control of the General Assembly for the next ten years. Will the fact that reapportionment decisions have now become a fait accompli (if Quinn’s win is confirmed) cause legislative debate to become more tempered? That, too, is a possibility, although the odds may be long.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
And The Winner Is …. ?
After all the months political debates, charges, countercharges, and millions of dollars spent on television, radio and mail to convince voters that their opponents are worse than they are, Election 2010 will mercifully draw to a close in two days. By the end of the day on November 2 we should have some idea as to what the next two years, and possibly the next decade, hold politically and governmentally in the state of Illinois.
Democrats want to keep the governor’s office and majorities in the legislature so they can control state policy for the next two years, but also draw the reapportionment map that could put them in legislative control for the next ten. Republicans, on the other hand, feel emboldened and have put on a full frontal assault hoping to capture the governor’s office and possibly into a majority in the House. Either one would give them a 50/50 chance to control the reapportionment process that will begin in the spring.
With literally hours to go in the governor’s race it appears that the race is in a virtual dead heat. The number of targeted legislative races has expanded over the last few weeks so there are as many as 30 house districts being contested along with a dozen or so senate seats. The contested legislative seats are not focused in any one area so observers are going to have to wait for local returns from almost every area of the state. That should make for a long night on Tuesday as results trickle in.
The magic numbers for Tuesday night are 60 and 30. Those are the numbers that a party will need to control each of the legislative chambers. Sixty members of one party control the House and 30 control the Senate. Will Democrats be able to withstand the expected GOP/Tea Party onslaught? Have they been able to create a game plan that will offer different result than in 1994 when Republicans ran the table and captured every state office and control of the legislature? What happens if there is a 59-59 tie in the House? (Quick answer: Very ugly and gridlocked paralysis for two years.) Tune in Tuesday night …
For those who wish to follow the status of the legislative elections during Tuesday night, you might try www.capitalfaxblog. They may have compiled reports from the field that will provide the status of many legislative races, and all in one place.
Lame Ducks
Prior to every post-election season legislative session speculation abounds regarding major policy enactments by the General Assembly with lame duck legislators providing the necessary votes. In reality, such major policy decisions seldom occur.
Lame ducks can be classified in two categories: 1) Retired/defeated and committed, and 2) Retired/defeated and uncommitted.
The first category is comprised of legislators who feel a deep affinity for the legislative process and who feel that it is their responsibility to participate fully in the process until the final session gavel comes down. Most soon-to-be former legislators fit into this category. The second category is generally comprised of a few who may have retired because they looked upon the process as a burden or who are angry because they were “rejected” by their constituents in their reelection efforts. Their commitment to seeing the process through to the end is questionable.
Putting together the votes for a major initiative in the yearly veto session requires an extraordinary number of votes for it to be effective immediately. Generally, committed legislators who will not be returning, by and large, stay true to their philosophies and generally will not cross over and breach their principles. Additionally, some in this category may have plans to run for office again so it is even more unlikely that they will cast an odd vote. On the other hand, the few uncommitted legislators may not even be counted on to be in Springfield during post-election session days, let alone counting on a vote or convincing them to vote on a major piece of legislation.
What all this suggests is that putting together a successful roll call to enact a major initiative, such as a tax increase, is not an easy task. Can it happen? Surely. However, it’s never easy as the lack of such successful efforts in the past can attest.
Disorder in the Court?
One of the important results to watch on election night will be the effort to unseat Supreme Court Justice Thomas Kilbride. Democrats currently hold and traditionally have held a 4-3 majority on the Illinois Supreme Court. In the past the four Democratic votes have come from the three Cook County justices along with the justice elected from southern Illinois. In the past ten years two upsets have occurred that skewed this formula. In 2004 a Republican, Lloyd Karmeier, was elected from the southern Illinois district and in 2000 Democrat Thomas Kilbride was elected from the normally Republican 3rd District that stretches from Will County to Rock Island. Illinois supreme court justices serve for ten years and then appear on a retention ballot. They must receive 60 percent approval to be retained. It’s Justice Kilbride’s turn at bat in 2010 and it’s been a battle royale.
Why? The simple answer is caps on malpractice awards. Twice in the last forty years the legislature has approved malpractice award caps and twice, most recently last February, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled those caps unconstitutional with a four-vote majority. Change one vote and the possibility of major policy change in Illinois becomes possible. Enter Kilbride and his retention effort. The pro-caps, anti-Kilbride groups are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to deny him retention and have been brutal in their representation of his record. Kilbride has countered by presenting testimonials from a bipartisan broad cross-section of prominent persons touting his record. Remember that judicial elections aren’t generally issue-oriented -- judicial candidates are forbidden to be specific on how they would rule on specific issues or cases so races become focused more on background, values and trust.
A possible GOP Supreme Court majority also puts them in a position to rule on the state legislative reapportionment case when it arrives there, as it always does, sometime in mid-to-late 2011. The results in the gubernatorial and legislative races will be the first step in the remap process. The Illinois Supreme Court is the last, final and most important step, especially since they could discard any map presented to it and rule for another. That map will determine the legislative politics in Illinois for the next ten years. So keep an eye on this race Tuesday night. The impact could significantly impact the Illinois governmental and political landscape for years.
Who’s Next?
One of the major and sometimes overriding factors that determine the nature of the General Assembly’s fiscal and policy decisions is the city of Chicago, and the actions of its legislative delegation are very much dictated by leadership philosophy and the perceived needs of the person sitting in the mayor’s chair. In 2011 there may be a void in the direction that the city delegation is given due to the announced retirement of Mayor Richard M. Daley. Not only has his early retirement announcement created a scramble for the legion of mayors-in-waiting who wish to succeed him, but it may also create a rudderless legislative delegation searching for direction at a time when the state and city both are struggling financially.
According to the 2011 election calendar, mayoral candidates must file their petitions no later than November 22. Even though candidates will have a week to withdraw, and some will, it will provide a good glimpse of the expected large number of individuals who want to try to grab for this possible once-in-a-generation ‘brass ring’. The non-partisan primary election is scheduled to be held on February 22. If no candidate receives 50 percent then the top two will face off on April 5. The winner will take office on May 16 … while the General Assembly session adjournment date is May 31, only two weeks later.
If there is a sure winner on February 22 then there probably would be some consultation and coordination between the current and incoming administrations and the Chicago delegation. With the large number of candidates expected to run, however, it is widely expected that April 5 will be the date that the next mayor is elected. Not much time will remain for the new administration to get its priorities in order and its delegation marching in sync.
The needs and desires of the City of Chicago are not always the preeminent factor in legislative deliberation and they don’t always get what they want. But, like it or not, they are a very large delegation and a factor, and sometimes a very large factor, in determining the direction of the state and whoever is mayor helps to set that direction. In 2011, however, it may be one big delegation in search of a leader.
Veto Session (And Other) Dates Reminder
The Senate will be meeting on November 4 for the purpose of considering additional borrowing. It is not a “special session” but rather a session that was “recessed” when the legislature left Springfield in May. Therefore, the subject matter is not limited but it is not expected that anything out of the ordinary will take place.
The legislature is scheduled to meet the week before (November 16, 17, 18) and the week after (November 29, 30 and December 1) Thanksgiving to conduct its annual veto session. The governor vetoed or amendatory vetoed very little so there is some possibility that the number of session days may be cut. Of course, it also leaves time to act on other issues that may be outstanding.
Also expect at least a short legislative session in January. A governor will be sworn in on Monday, January 10. The legislature will probably meet that day and the next, wrapping up the current session before the new General Assembly is sworn into office on January 12. The January session days could be significant because as of January 1, the number of votes necessary to pass a bill and have it effective immediately drops from a three-fifths (36 Senate/71 House) to a simple majority (30/60).
Democrats want to keep the governor’s office and majorities in the legislature so they can control state policy for the next two years, but also draw the reapportionment map that could put them in legislative control for the next ten. Republicans, on the other hand, feel emboldened and have put on a full frontal assault hoping to capture the governor’s office and possibly into a majority in the House. Either one would give them a 50/50 chance to control the reapportionment process that will begin in the spring.
With literally hours to go in the governor’s race it appears that the race is in a virtual dead heat. The number of targeted legislative races has expanded over the last few weeks so there are as many as 30 house districts being contested along with a dozen or so senate seats. The contested legislative seats are not focused in any one area so observers are going to have to wait for local returns from almost every area of the state. That should make for a long night on Tuesday as results trickle in.
The magic numbers for Tuesday night are 60 and 30. Those are the numbers that a party will need to control each of the legislative chambers. Sixty members of one party control the House and 30 control the Senate. Will Democrats be able to withstand the expected GOP/Tea Party onslaught? Have they been able to create a game plan that will offer different result than in 1994 when Republicans ran the table and captured every state office and control of the legislature? What happens if there is a 59-59 tie in the House? (Quick answer: Very ugly and gridlocked paralysis for two years.) Tune in Tuesday night …
For those who wish to follow the status of the legislative elections during Tuesday night, you might try www.capitalfaxblog. They may have compiled reports from the field that will provide the status of many legislative races, and all in one place.
Lame Ducks
Prior to every post-election season legislative session speculation abounds regarding major policy enactments by the General Assembly with lame duck legislators providing the necessary votes. In reality, such major policy decisions seldom occur.
Lame ducks can be classified in two categories: 1) Retired/defeated and committed, and 2) Retired/defeated and uncommitted.
The first category is comprised of legislators who feel a deep affinity for the legislative process and who feel that it is their responsibility to participate fully in the process until the final session gavel comes down. Most soon-to-be former legislators fit into this category. The second category is generally comprised of a few who may have retired because they looked upon the process as a burden or who are angry because they were “rejected” by their constituents in their reelection efforts. Their commitment to seeing the process through to the end is questionable.
Putting together the votes for a major initiative in the yearly veto session requires an extraordinary number of votes for it to be effective immediately. Generally, committed legislators who will not be returning, by and large, stay true to their philosophies and generally will not cross over and breach their principles. Additionally, some in this category may have plans to run for office again so it is even more unlikely that they will cast an odd vote. On the other hand, the few uncommitted legislators may not even be counted on to be in Springfield during post-election session days, let alone counting on a vote or convincing them to vote on a major piece of legislation.
What all this suggests is that putting together a successful roll call to enact a major initiative, such as a tax increase, is not an easy task. Can it happen? Surely. However, it’s never easy as the lack of such successful efforts in the past can attest.
Disorder in the Court?
One of the important results to watch on election night will be the effort to unseat Supreme Court Justice Thomas Kilbride. Democrats currently hold and traditionally have held a 4-3 majority on the Illinois Supreme Court. In the past the four Democratic votes have come from the three Cook County justices along with the justice elected from southern Illinois. In the past ten years two upsets have occurred that skewed this formula. In 2004 a Republican, Lloyd Karmeier, was elected from the southern Illinois district and in 2000 Democrat Thomas Kilbride was elected from the normally Republican 3rd District that stretches from Will County to Rock Island. Illinois supreme court justices serve for ten years and then appear on a retention ballot. They must receive 60 percent approval to be retained. It’s Justice Kilbride’s turn at bat in 2010 and it’s been a battle royale.
Why? The simple answer is caps on malpractice awards. Twice in the last forty years the legislature has approved malpractice award caps and twice, most recently last February, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled those caps unconstitutional with a four-vote majority. Change one vote and the possibility of major policy change in Illinois becomes possible. Enter Kilbride and his retention effort. The pro-caps, anti-Kilbride groups are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to deny him retention and have been brutal in their representation of his record. Kilbride has countered by presenting testimonials from a bipartisan broad cross-section of prominent persons touting his record. Remember that judicial elections aren’t generally issue-oriented -- judicial candidates are forbidden to be specific on how they would rule on specific issues or cases so races become focused more on background, values and trust.
A possible GOP Supreme Court majority also puts them in a position to rule on the state legislative reapportionment case when it arrives there, as it always does, sometime in mid-to-late 2011. The results in the gubernatorial and legislative races will be the first step in the remap process. The Illinois Supreme Court is the last, final and most important step, especially since they could discard any map presented to it and rule for another. That map will determine the legislative politics in Illinois for the next ten years. So keep an eye on this race Tuesday night. The impact could significantly impact the Illinois governmental and political landscape for years.
Who’s Next?
One of the major and sometimes overriding factors that determine the nature of the General Assembly’s fiscal and policy decisions is the city of Chicago, and the actions of its legislative delegation are very much dictated by leadership philosophy and the perceived needs of the person sitting in the mayor’s chair. In 2011 there may be a void in the direction that the city delegation is given due to the announced retirement of Mayor Richard M. Daley. Not only has his early retirement announcement created a scramble for the legion of mayors-in-waiting who wish to succeed him, but it may also create a rudderless legislative delegation searching for direction at a time when the state and city both are struggling financially.
According to the 2011 election calendar, mayoral candidates must file their petitions no later than November 22. Even though candidates will have a week to withdraw, and some will, it will provide a good glimpse of the expected large number of individuals who want to try to grab for this possible once-in-a-generation ‘brass ring’. The non-partisan primary election is scheduled to be held on February 22. If no candidate receives 50 percent then the top two will face off on April 5. The winner will take office on May 16 … while the General Assembly session adjournment date is May 31, only two weeks later.
If there is a sure winner on February 22 then there probably would be some consultation and coordination between the current and incoming administrations and the Chicago delegation. With the large number of candidates expected to run, however, it is widely expected that April 5 will be the date that the next mayor is elected. Not much time will remain for the new administration to get its priorities in order and its delegation marching in sync.
The needs and desires of the City of Chicago are not always the preeminent factor in legislative deliberation and they don’t always get what they want. But, like it or not, they are a very large delegation and a factor, and sometimes a very large factor, in determining the direction of the state and whoever is mayor helps to set that direction. In 2011, however, it may be one big delegation in search of a leader.
Veto Session (And Other) Dates Reminder
The Senate will be meeting on November 4 for the purpose of considering additional borrowing. It is not a “special session” but rather a session that was “recessed” when the legislature left Springfield in May. Therefore, the subject matter is not limited but it is not expected that anything out of the ordinary will take place.
The legislature is scheduled to meet the week before (November 16, 17, 18) and the week after (November 29, 30 and December 1) Thanksgiving to conduct its annual veto session. The governor vetoed or amendatory vetoed very little so there is some possibility that the number of session days may be cut. Of course, it also leaves time to act on other issues that may be outstanding.
Also expect at least a short legislative session in January. A governor will be sworn in on Monday, January 10. The legislature will probably meet that day and the next, wrapping up the current session before the new General Assembly is sworn into office on January 12. The January session days could be significant because as of January 1, the number of votes necessary to pass a bill and have it effective immediately drops from a three-fifths (36 Senate/71 House) to a simple majority (30/60).
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
ILLINOIS REGISTER ILLINOIS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED RULES
1) Heading of the Part: Licensing of Radioactive Material
2) Code Citation: 32 Ill. Adm. Code 330.40
3) Register Citation to Notice of Proposed Rules:
33 Ill. Reg. 12061; August 28, 2009.
4) Date, Time and Location of Public Meeting:
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
9:00 AM to 12:00 PM and 1:00 to 4:00 PM
Illinois Valley Community College
815 North Orlando Smith Avenue
Room C316
Oglesby, Illinois
5) Other Pertinent Information:
At its meeting on August 10, 2010, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR)
voted to object to the above-proposed rulemaking and prohibit its filing with the
Secretary of State. The Committee found that the adoption of this rulemaking at that time would constitute a serious threat to the public interest. The reason for the Objection and Prohibition is as follows:
JCAR objects to and prohibits filing of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency's rulemaking titled Licensing of Radioactive Material (32 Ill. Adm. Code 330; 33 Ill. Reg.12061) because the rulemaking causes a significant adverse economic impact on he affected public at this time. JCAR further requests that IEMA conduct an additional meeting to enable the affected public to present data in an attempt to show that the public health and safety can be protected with less adverse economic impact.
Therefore, the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) is holding a public meeting to allow interested persons to present written and oral testimony to show that the public health and safety can be protected with less adverse economic impact. Testimony should be focused on the basis and extent of the economic impacts of complying with the proposed rule and alternative proposals for protecting public health and safety and future liability for property owners. Interested persons should be prepared to present specific and detailed economic data related to this rulemaking. This should include economic data regarding current itemized costs for capturing radium at water treatment plant and managing it as radioactive waste, for using additional lands for land application, for disposal in a landfill and any other pertinent information related to the costs of management of water treatment residuals and/or sewage treatment sludge containing radium. In addition, interested persons should provide estimated itemized costs to comply with the proposed rulemaking. In regard to public health and safety, interested persons should be able to provide results of representative sampling for fields where land application of radium bearing water treatment residuals and sewage sludge has historically taken place and be prepared to present data to show that past land application has not resulted in a public health and safety concern.
Comment time will be adjusted to accommodate as many interested persons as possible.
Due to time constraints, interested persons should be prepared to submit written
testimony in place of oral testimony. The Agency will consider fully all written and oral comments/testimony presented during the meeting. For those interested persons that can not attend the public meeting, written comment will be accepted until 5:00PM on October 27, 2010 by emailing Louise.Michels@illinois.gov or mail to Louise Michels, IEMA, 1035 Outer Park Drive, Springfield, IL 62704. For further information, please call (217)785-9876.
For additional information concerning this proposed rulemaking, please go to IEMA’s
website at http://www.state.il.us/iema/legal/legal.htm.
Dennis Duffield is available to respond to questions and assist in preparation for the public hearing. Assistance to smaller communities is a part of my responsibilities to the group of stakeholders organized by Joliet, Channahon, Geneva and the DeKalb Sanitary District.
Dennis L. Duffield, P.E, Project Manager
Rogina and Associates, Ltd.
815-693-9871
2) Code Citation: 32 Ill. Adm. Code 330.40
3) Register Citation to Notice of Proposed Rules:
33 Ill. Reg. 12061; August 28, 2009.
4) Date, Time and Location of Public Meeting:
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
9:00 AM to 12:00 PM and 1:00 to 4:00 PM
Illinois Valley Community College
815 North Orlando Smith Avenue
Room C316
Oglesby, Illinois
5) Other Pertinent Information:
At its meeting on August 10, 2010, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR)
voted to object to the above-proposed rulemaking and prohibit its filing with the
Secretary of State. The Committee found that the adoption of this rulemaking at that time would constitute a serious threat to the public interest. The reason for the Objection and Prohibition is as follows:
JCAR objects to and prohibits filing of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency's rulemaking titled Licensing of Radioactive Material (32 Ill. Adm. Code 330; 33 Ill. Reg.12061) because the rulemaking causes a significant adverse economic impact on he affected public at this time. JCAR further requests that IEMA conduct an additional meeting to enable the affected public to present data in an attempt to show that the public health and safety can be protected with less adverse economic impact.
Therefore, the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) is holding a public meeting to allow interested persons to present written and oral testimony to show that the public health and safety can be protected with less adverse economic impact. Testimony should be focused on the basis and extent of the economic impacts of complying with the proposed rule and alternative proposals for protecting public health and safety and future liability for property owners. Interested persons should be prepared to present specific and detailed economic data related to this rulemaking. This should include economic data regarding current itemized costs for capturing radium at water treatment plant and managing it as radioactive waste, for using additional lands for land application, for disposal in a landfill and any other pertinent information related to the costs of management of water treatment residuals and/or sewage treatment sludge containing radium. In addition, interested persons should provide estimated itemized costs to comply with the proposed rulemaking. In regard to public health and safety, interested persons should be able to provide results of representative sampling for fields where land application of radium bearing water treatment residuals and sewage sludge has historically taken place and be prepared to present data to show that past land application has not resulted in a public health and safety concern.
Comment time will be adjusted to accommodate as many interested persons as possible.
Due to time constraints, interested persons should be prepared to submit written
testimony in place of oral testimony. The Agency will consider fully all written and oral comments/testimony presented during the meeting. For those interested persons that can not attend the public meeting, written comment will be accepted until 5:00PM on October 27, 2010 by emailing Louise.Michels@illinois.gov or mail to Louise Michels, IEMA, 1035 Outer Park Drive, Springfield, IL 62704. For further information, please call (217)785-9876.
For additional information concerning this proposed rulemaking, please go to IEMA’s
website at http://www.state.il.us/iema/legal/legal.htm.
Dennis Duffield is available to respond to questions and assist in preparation for the public hearing. Assistance to smaller communities is a part of my responsibilities to the group of stakeholders organized by Joliet, Channahon, Geneva and the DeKalb Sanitary District.
Dennis L. Duffield, P.E, Project Manager
Rogina and Associates, Ltd.
815-693-9871
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
EPA Issues Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Sustainability Policy
EPA Issues Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Sustainability Policy The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Sustainability Policy with the goal of increasing the sustainability of water and wastewater infrastructure in the United States. Communities across the country are facing challenges in making costly upgrades and repairs to their aging water infrastructure, which include sewer systems and treatment facilities. Making this infrastructure last longer while increasing its cost-effectiveness is essential to protecting human health and the environment, and maintaining safe drinking water and clean water bodies. The new policy is part of EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s priority to protect America’s waters.
The policy emphasizes the need to build on existing efforts to promote sustainable water infrastructure. The policy also focuses on working with states and water systems to employ comprehensive planning processes that result in projects that are cost effective over their life cycle, resource efficient, and consistent with community sustainability goals. The policy encourages effective utility management practices to build and maintain the level of technical, financial, and managerial capacity necessary to ensure long-term sustainability.
The policy represents a collaborative effort between EPA and its federal, state, and local partners. Working with these partners, EPA will develop guidance, provide technical assistance, and target federal, state and other relevant federal financial assistance in support of increasing the sustainability of America’s water infrastructure.
Link to full document
The policy emphasizes the need to build on existing efforts to promote sustainable water infrastructure. The policy also focuses on working with states and water systems to employ comprehensive planning processes that result in projects that are cost effective over their life cycle, resource efficient, and consistent with community sustainability goals. The policy encourages effective utility management practices to build and maintain the level of technical, financial, and managerial capacity necessary to ensure long-term sustainability.
The policy represents a collaborative effort between EPA and its federal, state, and local partners. Working with these partners, EPA will develop guidance, provide technical assistance, and target federal, state and other relevant federal financial assistance in support of increasing the sustainability of America’s water infrastructure.
Link to full document
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Heading Toward the Finish Line - Legislative Update - ISAWWA
Heading Toward The Finish Line
With the November 2 general election fast approaching, grim would be the most appropriate descriptive for the immediate future of social services providers and other state vendors. For them it’s been a long few years and an even longer summer as the state wrestles with record budget deficits, a staggering amount of fresh debt and no resources to pay for any of it. In addition, the already precarious leadership capabilities of the state’s chief executive became more so with the sudden resignation of Jerry Stermer, Governor Quinn’s Chief of Staff recently. Even though his replacement, Michelle Stadler, is considered highly qualified, the perception that the current administration committed still yet another gaffe may be hard to overcome.
In politics, perception means everything. We’ve all seen elected officials who in reality couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag, but who have been re-elected year after year because the public perceived them as likeable. We’ve also seen, as in the case of former President Gerald Ford, that the perception of being a “stumblebum” can hurt one’s image very badly. In the close election of 1976 that Ford lost his image as error-prone was a contributing factor. Perception in Illinois today tells us that the once hard-charging reformer who assumed the governor’s office two years ago has “left the building” and has been replaced by an individual that pundits have taken to call “Governor Jello”. Not good. He’s found out the hard way that it’s easy to throw stones from the outside when there is no accountability attached. Responsibility is a game-changer. The GOP also found that out in Washington, D.C. when they took over the Congress in 1995 and found that talking about governing is easy, actually doing it isn’t.
During the next five weeks expect the budget to the deficit to take center stage in the contest for governor. Inquiring minds want to know what each candidate has in mind to get the state back on track. Brady will be suggesting that Quinn is an inefficient steward who lives to raise taxes, and Quinn will be questioning Brady’s abilities and suggest that his word not to raise taxes is meaningless. Neither has been extremely forthright about budget specifics, but Quinn, fortunately or unfortunately, happens to occupy the office so he will be both the voice of experience and the target of criticism. Brady can portray himself as the “outsider” who can pretty much promise anything without pre-election repercussion.
1994 reprise?
Looking back at 1994, there are many who are of the opinion that 2010 will be a mirror image of that year when a GOP tsunami resulted in control of both Congress and the Illinois legislature. Republicans already had control of the Illinois Senate in 1994 but needed a turnover of nine seats to overcome the Democrats 67-51 majority. When the dust settled the turnover was thirteen seats, a pretty incredible number. That majority lasted for two years, until 1996, when the Democrats wrestled control once again.
Even with all of the polls, direct mail, media advertising and shouting, there is no way to accurately predict what voters might do in four-plus weeks. Certainly there are certain similarities to 1994 this year that are evident, but there are also differences.
The similarities are a Democratic president two years into his administration with drooping popularity (although this is an Illinois president whose popularity in his home state is still fairly high), a divisive national health care debate steeped in misinformation, and an attempt by the congressional minority party to promise “change” (their type).
Differences, specifically to Illinois at least, are a recognition by Illinois Democrats that there could be a huge wave on the horizon (that didn’t happen in 1994 until it was too late), legislative races that are being contested are in districts the Democrats drew in 2002 (Republicans drew the 1992 maps that were in play in 1994), no straight party voting (it was abolished by the GOP legislature in 1996 after it was attributed to Democratic successes in the 1996 elections) which means that voters will have to choose candidates individually and could be a big advantage to incumbents, and a difference in the top races (in 1994, the GOP had Governor Edgar running for re-election and Democrat Dawn Clark Netsch ran an awful race, fell behind Governor Edgar almost 2-1 in June, never recovered, was trounced in November and took the entire Democratic Party down with her). This year the race for governor will be closer and the Democrats have two statewide officeholders that should get voters to cross over – Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Secretary of State Jesse White.
There are also intangibles that are present that may impact the outcome on November 2, depending on how serious prospective voters take them as they cast their ballots. How much impact will the tea party movement have? Are they a niche group composed of right wingers and libertarians, or is their reach broader? Will the horrific state of the state drive people to the polls or drive them away? Will the perceived lack of confidence in state leaders and the legislature spell doom for the incumbent party, or will voters say, “get rid of everyone else, but mine’s ok”?
Will alternative candidates and parties like the Green Party and Scott Lee Cohen have any measurable impact individually or collectively? Will efforts by the Chicago Tribune and GOP candidates to paint Speaker Michael Madigan as the villain in the state of the state mess gain traction, or will it prove to be a yawner?
We’ll know the answers to these and perhaps get a glimpse into the future in just over 30 days.
Regardless as to whomever you support or root for, or whichever philosophy you espouse, there is one thing that everyone should be praying for between now and November 2 … that the results of November 2 don’t result in a 59-59 tie in the House. It won’t be pretty, trust us.
Veto Session (And Other) Dates Reminder
The legislature is scheduled to meet the week before (November 16, 17, 18) and the week after (November 29, 30 and December 1) Thanksgiving to conduct its annual veto session. The governor vetoed or amendatory vetoed very little so there is some possibility that the number of session days may be cut. Of course, it also leaves time to act on other issues that may be outstanding.
Also expect at least a short legislative session in January. A governor will be sworn in on Monday, January 10. The legislature will probably meet that day and the next, wrapping up the current session before the new General Assembly is sworn into office on January 12. The January session days could be significant because as of January 1 the number of votes necessary to pass a bill and have it effective immediately drops from a three-fifths (36 Senate/71 House) to a simple majority (30/60).
With the November 2 general election fast approaching, grim would be the most appropriate descriptive for the immediate future of social services providers and other state vendors. For them it’s been a long few years and an even longer summer as the state wrestles with record budget deficits, a staggering amount of fresh debt and no resources to pay for any of it. In addition, the already precarious leadership capabilities of the state’s chief executive became more so with the sudden resignation of Jerry Stermer, Governor Quinn’s Chief of Staff recently. Even though his replacement, Michelle Stadler, is considered highly qualified, the perception that the current administration committed still yet another gaffe may be hard to overcome.
In politics, perception means everything. We’ve all seen elected officials who in reality couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag, but who have been re-elected year after year because the public perceived them as likeable. We’ve also seen, as in the case of former President Gerald Ford, that the perception of being a “stumblebum” can hurt one’s image very badly. In the close election of 1976 that Ford lost his image as error-prone was a contributing factor. Perception in Illinois today tells us that the once hard-charging reformer who assumed the governor’s office two years ago has “left the building” and has been replaced by an individual that pundits have taken to call “Governor Jello”. Not good. He’s found out the hard way that it’s easy to throw stones from the outside when there is no accountability attached. Responsibility is a game-changer. The GOP also found that out in Washington, D.C. when they took over the Congress in 1995 and found that talking about governing is easy, actually doing it isn’t.
During the next five weeks expect the budget to the deficit to take center stage in the contest for governor. Inquiring minds want to know what each candidate has in mind to get the state back on track. Brady will be suggesting that Quinn is an inefficient steward who lives to raise taxes, and Quinn will be questioning Brady’s abilities and suggest that his word not to raise taxes is meaningless. Neither has been extremely forthright about budget specifics, but Quinn, fortunately or unfortunately, happens to occupy the office so he will be both the voice of experience and the target of criticism. Brady can portray himself as the “outsider” who can pretty much promise anything without pre-election repercussion.
1994 reprise?
Looking back at 1994, there are many who are of the opinion that 2010 will be a mirror image of that year when a GOP tsunami resulted in control of both Congress and the Illinois legislature. Republicans already had control of the Illinois Senate in 1994 but needed a turnover of nine seats to overcome the Democrats 67-51 majority. When the dust settled the turnover was thirteen seats, a pretty incredible number. That majority lasted for two years, until 1996, when the Democrats wrestled control once again.
Even with all of the polls, direct mail, media advertising and shouting, there is no way to accurately predict what voters might do in four-plus weeks. Certainly there are certain similarities to 1994 this year that are evident, but there are also differences.
The similarities are a Democratic president two years into his administration with drooping popularity (although this is an Illinois president whose popularity in his home state is still fairly high), a divisive national health care debate steeped in misinformation, and an attempt by the congressional minority party to promise “change” (their type).
Differences, specifically to Illinois at least, are a recognition by Illinois Democrats that there could be a huge wave on the horizon (that didn’t happen in 1994 until it was too late), legislative races that are being contested are in districts the Democrats drew in 2002 (Republicans drew the 1992 maps that were in play in 1994), no straight party voting (it was abolished by the GOP legislature in 1996 after it was attributed to Democratic successes in the 1996 elections) which means that voters will have to choose candidates individually and could be a big advantage to incumbents, and a difference in the top races (in 1994, the GOP had Governor Edgar running for re-election and Democrat Dawn Clark Netsch ran an awful race, fell behind Governor Edgar almost 2-1 in June, never recovered, was trounced in November and took the entire Democratic Party down with her). This year the race for governor will be closer and the Democrats have two statewide officeholders that should get voters to cross over – Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Secretary of State Jesse White.
There are also intangibles that are present that may impact the outcome on November 2, depending on how serious prospective voters take them as they cast their ballots. How much impact will the tea party movement have? Are they a niche group composed of right wingers and libertarians, or is their reach broader? Will the horrific state of the state drive people to the polls or drive them away? Will the perceived lack of confidence in state leaders and the legislature spell doom for the incumbent party, or will voters say, “get rid of everyone else, but mine’s ok”?
Will alternative candidates and parties like the Green Party and Scott Lee Cohen have any measurable impact individually or collectively? Will efforts by the Chicago Tribune and GOP candidates to paint Speaker Michael Madigan as the villain in the state of the state mess gain traction, or will it prove to be a yawner?
We’ll know the answers to these and perhaps get a glimpse into the future in just over 30 days.
Regardless as to whomever you support or root for, or whichever philosophy you espouse, there is one thing that everyone should be praying for between now and November 2 … that the results of November 2 don’t result in a 59-59 tie in the House. It won’t be pretty, trust us.
Veto Session (And Other) Dates Reminder
The legislature is scheduled to meet the week before (November 16, 17, 18) and the week after (November 29, 30 and December 1) Thanksgiving to conduct its annual veto session. The governor vetoed or amendatory vetoed very little so there is some possibility that the number of session days may be cut. Of course, it also leaves time to act on other issues that may be outstanding.
Also expect at least a short legislative session in January. A governor will be sworn in on Monday, January 10. The legislature will probably meet that day and the next, wrapping up the current session before the new General Assembly is sworn into office on January 12. The January session days could be significant because as of January 1 the number of votes necessary to pass a bill and have it effective immediately drops from a three-fifths (36 Senate/71 House) to a simple majority (30/60).
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Notice of Stakeholders Meeting - Proposed Regulation of Radium in Water Treatment and Wastewater Treatment Sludge
At its August 10, 2010 meeting the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) objected to and prohibited the filing of the IEMA proposed rulemaking titled "Licensing of Radioactive Material" (32 Ill Adm. Code 330:33 Ill Reg. 12061) because the rulemaking would cause a significant adverse economic impact on the affected public. JCAR requested the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) to conduct an additional meeting to enable the affected public to present data in an attempt to show that the public health and safety can be protected with less economic impact.
The action of JCAR is the result of the significant efforts of many agencies. While this action is significant, efforts to obtain "workable" regulation of radium in treatment plant residuals must continue. While IEMA intends to meet with Stakeholders as requested by JCAR, IEMA has advised the City of Joliet that no meeting date has been established.
The City of Joliet, the Village of Channahon, the City of Geneva and the Dekalb Sanitary District invite all Stakeholders to a discussion of the impacts on each community.
A MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR 10:00am ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2010 AT THE TERRACE ROOM, HOPKINS PARK, 1403 SYCAMORE ROAD (IL 23), DEKALB, IL CONCERNING RADIUM IN TREATMENT PLANT RESIDUALS.
The purpose of this Stakeholders meeting is to develop a consensus concerning the following items:
1 - Is it necessary for radium to be regulated or licensed directly by IEMA or should IEMA and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) jointly regulate radium with reporting included in land application reporting?
2 - What is the maximum increase in radiation above background radiation in the soil that should be allowed based on public health and economic considerations. IEMA proposes a 0.4 pico-curies per gram. Joliet has proposed 1.0 pico-curies per gram.
3 - Is it necessary to regulate the concentration of radium in sludge or is the regulation of the increase in background in the soil adequate?
4 - What are the costs and/or other concerns that should be taken into consideration by IEMA in promulgating a final rule?
Please notify Dennis L.Duffield at dduffield@rogina.com or telephone 815-693-9871 if you plan to attend. Questions may also be directed to 815-693-9871.
The action of JCAR is the result of the significant efforts of many agencies. While this action is significant, efforts to obtain "workable" regulation of radium in treatment plant residuals must continue. While IEMA intends to meet with Stakeholders as requested by JCAR, IEMA has advised the City of Joliet that no meeting date has been established.
The City of Joliet, the Village of Channahon, the City of Geneva and the Dekalb Sanitary District invite all Stakeholders to a discussion of the impacts on each community.
A MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR 10:00am ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2010 AT THE TERRACE ROOM, HOPKINS PARK, 1403 SYCAMORE ROAD (IL 23), DEKALB, IL CONCERNING RADIUM IN TREATMENT PLANT RESIDUALS.
The purpose of this Stakeholders meeting is to develop a consensus concerning the following items:
1 - Is it necessary for radium to be regulated or licensed directly by IEMA or should IEMA and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) jointly regulate radium with reporting included in land application reporting?
2 - What is the maximum increase in radiation above background radiation in the soil that should be allowed based on public health and economic considerations. IEMA proposes a 0.4 pico-curies per gram. Joliet has proposed 1.0 pico-curies per gram.
3 - Is it necessary to regulate the concentration of radium in sludge or is the regulation of the increase in background in the soil adequate?
4 - What are the costs and/or other concerns that should be taken into consideration by IEMA in promulgating a final rule?
Please notify Dennis L.Duffield at dduffield@rogina.com or telephone 815-693-9871 if you plan to attend. Questions may also be directed to 815-693-9871.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)