They Said It

From the Northwest Herald:

It may not be until after the March primary election that state lawmakers approve a 2016 budget, McHenry County lawmakers warned. 

They find the idea even more abhorrent than the fact the state has gone almost seven months without a budget, and they pledged to help push for getting a deal done as soon as possible once lawmakers reconvene Jan. 13 for the spring legislative session.

To Democratic Rep. Jack Franks and Republican Rep. Mike Tryon, it’s election-year politics over people, and who can blame whom. The state fiscal year started July 1.
“The governor will be giving his budget address for the next fiscal year, and we don’t even have a budget for this fiscal year. That’s how messed up this is. We are the ultimate freak show,” said Franks, D-Marengo.

From the Chicago Tribune:

When the fall semester began in the early months of the stalemate, many colleges and universities decided to credit students' tuition bills as if the subsidies had already been paid, with the expectation that they'd be reimbursed once the state had a budget. At the time, some schools said they couldn't guarantee they'd have enough reserves to cover spring tuition as well.

"If the university ultimately does not receive MAP funding from the state, we may be required to remove these funds from your university account and you might have to repay the university," Urbana-Champaign interim Chancellor Barbara Wilson wrote last month in an email to grant recipients.

Wilson said the university thinks that is "highly unlikely," but the message left students frustrated.

"If we had known this even back in May or before financial aid letters came out, I could have increased the loan amount I took out from the federal government," said Mitch Dickey, a U. of I. senior and MAP grant recipient. "I think a lot of people probably haven't realized that by the state continuing to drag this out, it's making financial planning very difficult for students."

From a letter to the editor in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Illinois is known as a great exporter of corn and soybeans, but apparently Illinois is now also in the business of exporting lawsuit abuse,

The American Tort Reform Foundation has recently named Missouri the nation’s fourth-worst “Judicial Hellhole” and Madison County, Ill., the nation’s fifth-worst “Judicial Hellhole.” It seems Illinois is indeed exporting lawsuit abuse across the river.

Politico Magazine Covers Illinois Political Standoff

Politico Magazine published an article discussing the deep political differences that have led to Illinois' four month long budget impasse. From the article:

Anyone who understands the “my way or the highway” personalities of the state’s rookie Republican governor, Bruce Rauner, 58, a private equity mogul in his first elective office, and its veteran Democratic Speaker of the House Michael Madigan 73, who has, in effect, been running the state for decades—he won his House seat in 1971 and, has been speaker almost continuously since 1983—knows that Green might be right. “This is a state that doesn’t believe in compromise,” Green says. “It’s in neither combatants’ interest to cave in now.” 

On his side, Rauner insists that enough is enough. He refuses to soften his stance that he will not negotiate on the budget until Democrats agree to his broader business-friendly “turnaround agenda.” Without more fundamental reforms, Rauner argues, Illinois may get a budget, but it will be the same old red-ink mess that has hobbled the state’s growth.

Illinois' Longest Serving Mayor Recognized at IML Annual Conference

There was a very touching moment during a luncheon on September 19 at the Illinois Municipal League's Annual Conference in Chicago. Marion Mayor Bob Butler was presented with a Lifetime of Service Award for the many notable accomplishments achieved during his 52 years of service as mayor. Mayor Butler assumed office in 1963 (during the Kennedy Administration), and is the longest serving mayor in Illinois history.  

Upcoming House Vote on Governor's Role In Negotiating AFSCME Contract Defining Moment in Springfield Political Struggle

This Tribune story covers a very significant issue percolating in the General Assembly, as the Legislative Branch contemplates whether to remove, at least temporarily, what has historically been a prerogative of the Executive Branch. 

The Senate already voted 38-15 (36 votes required) to strip away much of the Governor's negotiating authority over the labor contract with state employee unions. Existing law provides that the Governor can declare an impasse, and at such time the union can accept the State's final offer or elect to strike. 

This process would change if the General Assembly successfully overrides the Governor's veto of SB 1229. The potential change in law would vest an arbitrator with final decision-making authority over the terms of the contract. Illinois arbitration law restricts arbitrators to a choice between the employer's final offer, or the offer put forward by the union. The contract involves billions of dollars in taxpayer money. The House will attempt to override the Governor's Veto during the upcoming week. 

The contest over the scope of the Governor's involvement and authority to negotiate the labor contract is perhaps the most significant political issue that's arisen during the Governor's first few months in office. In some ways, it's more symbolically important than the ongoing budget impasse, which is playing out according to an existing process contemplated within the Illinois Constitution. 

This is not to suggest that the Governor's authority and role in the labor contract negotiation is a constitutional matter, but it is an historical prerogative that is currently threatened by the decision of another branch of government to change long-standing rules that affect the powers of the Executive Branch over a matter involving billions in taxpayer dollars.

$754 Million

Decades of growing financial problems are coming to a head for the City of Chicago. Per the Chicago Tribune:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel must come up with at least $754 million in new revenue and budget cuts to balance the city's books, according to preliminary 2016 budget estimates the administration released Friday.

Almost half of this debt $328 million is owed for pensions.

The inclusion of "at least" with the reference to the dollar amount reflects potentially higher costs that would result if Governor Rauner vetoes SB 777. This legislation would provide some immediate financial relief by tacking on an additional 15 years to the police and firefighter pension amortization schedule. Chicago's obligation to these funds would increase by an estimated $221 without the financial relief from the bill.

The Tribune story also mentions the anticipated budget deficit for the following fiscal year:

The $426 million budget gap projected for next year breaks down into three parts: $233 million for day-to-day city operations, a $93 million increase in payments to all four city pension funds and $100 million to pay down debt instead of push it off into the future at higher cost.

Illinois' political culture has grown accustomed to deferring painful financial reforms and kicking the can down the road. Sometimes a problem can become so large that it becomes impossible to avoid the consequences of difficult solutions. The heat generated from the current budget battle in Springfield are the birth pangs one would expect from a serious attempt to address very serious structural problems.

Laurence Msall of the Civic Federation prescribes a general outline of solutions for Chicago that are also relevant to the State of Illinois:

"What this report is a clear indication of is that the City Council and the administration have to move forward on reduced spending, elimination of unnecessary expenditures, greater efficiencies, but also a reality that they are going to need new tax revenue," he said.

Big financial problems require equally big solutions. Piecemeal reforms are no longer viable options.

Property Tax Freeze Vote More About Politics Than Policy

The Illinois House of Representatives recently took up a monumental public policy issue, but didn't really act on the measure in a manner befitting a monumental public policy issue.

All is forgiven if you are confused!

Sometimes a hot ticket item is voted on for political purposes instead of on its merits. That was the case with the May 15 vote on a bill to freeze residential and commercial property taxes.

HB 695 (Representative Franks, D-Woodstock) was amended to expand the existing property tax cap law (PTELL) to include every taxing district in the state that is reliant on property taxes. Under current law, only non-home rule taxing districts are subject to tax caps, and only if the taxing district imposes the cap on itself or is located within a county that has adopted tax caps.

The current law "caps" property taxes by limiting the extension rate to the lesser of 5 percent or inflation. This allows taxing districts to, at a minimum, automatically collect inflationary increases to keep up with the rising cost of goods and services.

This would change under HB 695. If enacted into law, the bill would cap the extension limitation of every taxing district in the state (including Chicago) at 0 percent. The only way to increase the extension limitation would be to get the approval of voters via referendum. Getting such approval is not always an easy thing to do.

The House opted to vote on the bill for two reasons, neither of which had anything to do with passing it.

First and foremost, the Democrats wanted to embarrass Governor Rauner with a roll call that demonstrated weak support for the bill. Only 37 votes were cast in support, and none of them were from Republicans. The Governor's Office urged the Republicans to vote "present" as a way to protest the theatrical nature of the vote and to underscore that the bill was not the Governor's exact property tax freeze proposal.

Secondly, the vote created an opportunity for the House Democrats to accuse the Republicans of not supporting property tax relief. It didn't take very long for the first negative mailer to hit following the vote. Most of the Democratic targets made sure to vote in favor of the bill.

Procedurally, the vote was only to adopt the amendment onto the bill. This only required a simple majority. Actually passing the bill over to the Senate would require a supermajority of 71 votes because the bill preempts home rule powers. There simply isn't enough support for HB 695 to attain this threshold.

The Governor filed his own property tax freeze proposal late last week. It remains to be seen if the General Assembly will hold a vote on the legislation next week. There may be plenty of time to consider the Governor's bill because all signs point to an overtime session.

Workers' Compensation Reform Being Teed-Up at the Statehouse

Bruce Rauner has been talking about the need for changes to Illinois' Workers' Compensation Act ever since he declared himself a candidate for Governor. Illinois has one of the most expensive comp systems in the nation, and the high costs impose significant barriers to recruiting businesses and job growth.

Even though the data is beyond dispute, organized labor and its allies in the General Assembly are pushing back by arguing that the comp reforms enacted in 2011 provided plenty of savings. The problem, they contend, is that insurance companies and doctors aren't passing the savings along to employers. But this argument ignores the fact that the 2011 reforms, while a step in the right direction, were never viewed by employers as substantial enough to really solve the problem of excessive comp costs.

Part of the problem was that the 2011 reforms were crafted based upon the realities of interest group politics. Savings can be wrung out of the comp system using different mechanisms. One way is by addressing benefit levels and eligibility. This approach is opposed by labor unions and trial lawyers. Both of these groups are supporters of the Illinois Democratic Party. Cost reductions can also be found by addressing medical costs and reimbursement rates. This approach is opposed by insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors. These groups typically support the Illinois Republican Party.

So when it was time to pass workers' compensation reform back in 2011, the majority-Democrats protected their supporters with a bill that squeezed some savings out of groups that support Republicans. The resultant reforms therefore fell short and left a great deal of savings on the table. This isn't intended to be a criticism of the Democrats as much as a lament about what can happen during periods of single party rule. 

Flash forward to 2015. Illinois still has high workers' compensation costs (one study ranks us as 7th highest in the nation) and a Republican Governor determined to extract savings with the passage of reforms that will rile traditional Democratic constituencies. Probably the most significant reform being sought is a change to the causation standard. The Governor and business community want to require that an injury actually occur on the job as a prerequisite for comp benefits. Under current law, someone can injure themselves playing softball on a weekend, and successfully file for comp benefits if they later aggravate the injury while at work. The Governor, Republican legislators, and employer groups want to change this policy. And this change needs to happen.

One might appropriately consider any enacted reforms in 2015 as "Workers' Compensation Reform 2.0," or a natural continuation of the 2011 reforms with Republicans having a much more prominent seat at the table. 

It's Already the Law

One of the bills that emerged from the House for Senate consideration involves a website posting mandate on local governments. 

HB 2717 would require that any public body with an annual budget of at least $1 million must maintain a website and include specific information on that website. Public bodies, represented by organizations like the Illinois Municipal League (my employer), contend that the bill represents another unfunded mandate imposed by the state onto local governments. Advocates of "open government" counter that the bill provides for much-needed transparency to insure that the public has essential information about their local governments. 

Most would agree that reducing unfunded mandates, or at least requiring the state to fund them, is good public policy. Most would probably also agree that transparency is a good thing. Reducing unfunded mandates and fostering transparency need not be mutually exclusive. The critical question for policymakers is how to best balance the public's "right to know" with the need to shield local governments from the annual accrual of one unfunded mandate after another.

The solution is to develop a singular and seamless mechanism for providing information. Transparency has become politically popular and legislators are looking to jump on board with transparency legislation of their own. Some of these bills have already become law. What we end up with is a mishmash of posting and reporting requirements. Local governments must abide by the posting requirements within the Open Meetings Act and are also subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Information also has to be printed in newspapers, provided to the State Comptroller, and forwarded to the Department of Central Management Services (CMS) for inclusion on the Illinois Transparency and Accountability Portal (ITAP). And now HB 2717 is proposing that information be included and updated on the website of the public body. The bill does allow for some of the ITAP postings to satisfy the requirements within the bill, but that still doesn't fully address the multiple existing reporting requirements. In fact, the bill specifically says that the posting requirements in the legislation are in addition to any other posting requirements established by law or ordinance. 

Somebody has to do all of this work, and some of it is unnecessarily duplicative. And somebody has to pay for it. This would be Illinois taxpayers. So the real public policy question shouldn't be "how can we make more information available to the public?" The better question is "how we can provide the information most efficiently and inexpensively?"

The primary advocate for HB 2717 is the Illinois Policy Institute (IPI). And the IPI appears to agree that reducing local government costs should be an objective of good transparency law. In fact, here's what the IPI offers as an argument for the passage of HB 2717:

This bill is also a big cost-saver for cash-strapped local governments, as it will save countless hours of paid staff time fulfilling Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, requests. If this bill becomes law, an agency would be able to legally deny all FOIA requests asking for information already posted on the agency’s website. 

In addition to saving time, it would also limit costly lawsuits – paid for by taxpayers – arising from mishandled FOIA requests.

The IPI says that HB 2717 is terrific because it will ease the burden and expense of complying with FOIA requests since, under the bill, the information required to be posted on the internet will be exempt from FOIA. 

But this is a deeply flawed argument for advancing the bill. FOIA exemptions for information posted on local government websites is already the law in Illinois. Here's the relevant language from Public Act 98-1129, which became law in December of 2014:

Since website posting already exempts the information from FOIA unless a taxpayer can make the case that they don't have a way to access the information on the website (a rare occurrence in an era of computers and smartphones), the argument that HB 2717 would reduce taxpayer costs rings hollow. In the end, the bill only adds to the multifarious and inefficient web (pun intended) of reporting requirements on local governments. This costs taxpayers more. 

Rather than layer additional reporting requirements on local governments, transparency advocates should focus their efforts on the lack of transparency in the state legislative process. For example, local governments cannot take action on an item unless it was posted for a continuous 48 hour period. The General Assembly can vote on legislation after it has been posted for an hour. 

Did the "Fair Share" Order Contribute to Governor Rauner's Court Criticism?

I haven't been blogging with any consistency as of late (my bad!). I do want to comment on a couple of recent developments that may be related.

Earlier this week, certain media outlets and blogs were positively atwitter about a comment made by Governor Rauner that called into question the, ahem, purity of the judicial system. The Governor stated the following:

Asked by the newspaper if he believes the state's high court is part of a "corrupt" system, Rauner said: "Yes, correct. Yes. Yes. We have a system where we elect our judges, and the trial lawyers who argue cases in front of those judges give campaign cash to those judges. It's a corrupt system."

The Governor isn't suggesting that the justices are somehow individually corrupt or of poor moral character, only that a system where judges accept financial donations in order to fund campaigns to obtain their seats might have a less than ideal effect on the ability of a justice to be as impartial as possible. It's a fair point. And there's a strong argument to be made that justices should be appointed for life to best insulate them from politics.

Anyway, the point of this post isn't to address that particular issue. Rather, I wanted to contextualize the Governor's comments by considering why he may have opted to criticize the court this week. Some believe that his comments were intended to apply pressure to the Illinois Supreme Court as it deliberates over the fate of SB 1 (pension reform). If his comments don't succeed in nudging the court to find the pension reductions constitutional (and I don't believe that his comments would), then he can always fall back on the "see, I told you so" response if the court sides with the unions.

There was, however, another judicial development this week that may have contributed to the Governor's comments. We learned the following on Friday:

A judge has issued an order requiring Illinois government agencies to immediately reinstate mandatory union dues for nonmembers. 

Friday’s order by St. Clair County Associate Judge Christopher Kolker requires the Rauner administration to “remit fair share fees . . . pending the resolution of the case” and to transmit “the correct payroll information” regarding gross pay for affected employees to Illinois’ comptroller. The order is based on an agreement between the administration and unions.

Note the bolded sentence, which indicates that the order was not a surprise to the administration. The decision simply says that, while the legal battle over "fair share" works its way through the court system, the state won't withhold "fair share" dues.

I don't know enough about how this process works to be able to tell if the administration found it necessary to work something out with the unions ahead of a perceived unfavorable ruling on the matter, or if they really did have an incentive to do so. The following statement by the administration suggests it was the latter:

A spokesman for Rauner said the move was part of an agreement the administration struck with unions to give them access to the money in exchange for an expedited timeline to move the case along.

Again, I really don't know. I can see why the administration would want an expedited consideration of the broader "fair share" question. It is surprising that they would concede the restoration of the "fair share" collections after working so diligently to find a "workaround" to withhold the dues at the agency level when the plan to have the Comptroller withhold them fell through. 

But I do wonder if the administration's foreknowledge that the court was going to temporarily reinstate the "fair share dues," pending an ultimate decision on the broader issue, contributed to the Governor's statement about the objectivity of the judiciary. 

Another Day, Another Rally

Another group visited the Statehouse today to advance their cause. This time it was a group of Second Amendment proponents wanting to expand the number of locations where firearms are permitted. Illinois law includes a couple dozen locations that are exempt from concealed carry. Here's a picture of the marchers on their way to the Statehouse. 

Budget Cut Protesters Storm Statehouse

An otherwise routine day filled with committee hearings was augmented by noisy protests at the Statehouse. A group known as Action Now filled the Statehouse with chants and boisterous displays of attention-getting as they protested against proposed budget cuts. At one point they breeched protocol in the House Gallery and were summarily removed from the chamber. The picture below is of the group snaking its way from the Statehouse to the Governor's Mansion, where the revelry continued. They created quite the ruckus as they passed my office. At one point the protestors took it upon themselves to block off the intersection. 

Protestors from the group Action Now turn the corner at 5th and Capital on their way to the Governor's Mansion.

A Brief Explanation of the "Empowerment Zone" Debate

To the abject horror of labor unions, Governor Bruce Rauner used his State of the State Address to advocate for the creation of local "empowerment zones." Kentucky is cited as an example of these empowerment, or "right-to-work" zones. 

In Kentucky, several counties have elected to use their home rule powers to become "right-to-work" counties and thereby end mandatory union membership and dues collections within their borders. Workers are permitted to voluntarily join unions in these counties, but they can't be fired or compelled to pay "fair share" dues if they don't join the union. 

Unions believe that federal law only grants states and territories with the authority to pass "right to work" laws. To date, 24 states have opted to pass such laws. But defenders of "right-to-work" contend that the United States Supreme Court has not ruled against local "right-to-work" zones, and that the law is at best favorable, and at worst silent on the matter. Right-to-work supporters are encouraging local counties and municipalities to establish "right-to-work" zones by ordinance in the belief that any eventual litigation will redound in their favor. 

Brace yourself because this fight will be epic.

Unions are concerned that the "right-to-work" concept will reduce union membership and financial muscle. Their concern is justified based upon what has happened in states like Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin. According to unions, "right-to-work" drives down wages and hurts "working families." But the evidence is mixed. In one sense, average wages are lower in "right-to-work" states. However, proponents of "right-to-work" point out that many "right-to-work" states are in the south, which is less economically developed and generally benefits from a lower cost of living than other regions. Proponents further argue that studies controlling for this regionalism provide evidence that wages are slightly higher in "right-to-work" states. 

But the two central arguments offered in favor of "right-to-work" are constitutional and economic. First, opponents of forced union participation and mandatory dues payments believe that such requirements are a violation of First Amendment free speech rights. The second argument is that "right-to-work" laws generate higher levels of economic activity, business investment, and job creation. Proponents cite statistics as evidence of these trends. 

The theory behind the creation of local "empowerment zones" is that states with pro-union legislatures won't pass "right to work" laws, so the best way to proceed is to bypass the legislatures by passing local ordinances. If businesses begin flocking to the local jurisdictions with investment and jobs, then other local jurisdictions, and eventually the states themselves, will be pressured to enact "right-to-work" laws.

There is a political dimension that goes beyond the economic arguments. Eliminating forced unionization and union dues will weaken what some believe to be the disproportionate amount of power held by public sector unions over Illinois politics. It will also harm the Democratic Party, which has emerged as the primary beneficiary of union money. And that's how a blue state begins to turn purple. That's also why there will be fierce opposition to any efforts to give "right-to-work" a foothold in Illinois. 

These are the general arguments that will be heard over the coming months and, perhaps, years. The outcome is unknown, but in a complete break with some of his avidly pro-union predecessors, Governor Rauner will make sure that the broader debate over "right-to-work" occurs in Illinois. 

Resolving Illinois' Problems Merits An Elevated Debate

There have been a few stories in both mainstream and social media of late about how Governor Rauner is spending more on his staff than did his predecessor. These stories have been used by some to generate friction, and by others to play the political "gotcha" game. In my opinion, some of the Governor's critics that have chosen to try and make an issue out of his decision to acquire and pay for top talent are revealing themselves as petty prognosticators. 

Some of the Governor's opponents are understandably eager to go on the attack and criticize everything he does. These will probably be the same people that relished in accusing the Governor of attiring himself in Carhartt to "mask" that he was an "out-of-touch plutocrat." That was always an infantile line of attack that had nothing to do with policy.

The Governor's opponents will have ample opportunity for criticism in the weeks ahead as he formally introduces a raft of policy proposals to deal with the state's deplorable financial condition. Our financial problems, however, are severe and won't be addressed with half-measures and the tired default to familiar partisan instincts and rhetoric. 

The Governor will propose serious solutions. These solutions won't be popular and will meet with understandable resistance from affected interests. People don't like change, particularly if their ox is being gored. That said, I'm hopeful (perhaps foolishly), that criticism and opposition to the Governor's proposals will be high-minded and serious. The magnitude of our structural budget crisis is serious and, consequently, deserving of a serious and high-minded debate. 

Let's respect the enormity of the issues with which we must grapple. I believe that the media bears a special responsibility to elevate the debate by focusing on the problems and possible solutions rather than the "hand-to-hand combat" stories. This will be a difficult temptation to avoid, but they owe it to their readers to do so. The practitioners of viscious partisanship should be shunned beyond the outskirts of respectability. Serious people and serious arguments, both pro and con, belong at the forefront. 

There will understandably be significant disagreements and counter-arguments over the coming months, but let's not take the intellectually lazy path with shallow and petty criticisms. Illinois' taxpayers deserve better. 

Governor Rauner Foreshadows "State of the State" Speech to Suburban Municipal Officials

I attended the Northwest Municipal Conference (NWMC) Legislative Brunch on January 24. It's an annual event where the suburban council of governments rolls out its legislative priorities to federal and state legislators. This year, Governor Rauner was a featured speaker and delivered a PowerPoint presentation about the challenges confronting the state budget and economy. Apparently his decision to appear at the event came together on Friday. I was able to capture the audio of his 30-minute presentation.


I understand that the Governor has been delivering this presentation at various venues in the run-up to his February 4 "State of the State" address. He discussed cost drivers like state employee health insurance, Medicaid, pensions, and state payroll expenditures relative to employment levels. Issues like outmigration, state mandates, shared revenue, workers' compensation costs, state and local taxation, perceived conflicts of interest between unions and legislators, job growth, and flat wages were also included within the presentation. Give it a listen to get the likely contours of the forthcoming "State of the State" speech.

Rauner Gets Last Word on Quinn Executive Orders

Former Governor Pat Quinn raised eyebrows when he used the remaining hours of his governorship to issue several Executive Orders. Along with a multitude of last-minute appointments to various boards and commissions, his actions struck many as a sign of disrespect and resentment toward his successor. As if to remove all doubt, the former Governor chose not to attend the inauguration of his successor.

Probably the most pointed Executive Order signed by the former Governor required that governors annually disclose detailed income tax information. This action appeared to be a clear shot at Governor Rauner and suggests that Quinn elected to wage his populist, class warfare campaign beyond the election and right up to the close of his governorship. 

It therefore came as no surprise when Governor Rauner undid those last minute Executive Orders on Friday:

Rauner’s executive orders, issued late on a Friday when fewer people are paying attention to the news, would effectively cancel seven edicts Quinn made during his final days as the head of state government.

The tax disclosure requirement was among a number of final jabs Quinn took at Rauner, who the ex-governor frequently criticized for releasing only limited income tax data during the campaign. Rauner has said he has turned over more information than required under law. There is no requirement under law. 

"It is clear that too many of Pat Quinn's actions during his final weeks in office were in an effort to settle political scores and not wholly aimed at serving the public's interest," Rauner spokesman Lance Trover said in a statement. The administration says it will decide on a "case-by-case basis" if any of Quinn's orders may be "re-implemented."
Rauner’s executive order also cancels Quinn’s move to require state contractors to be paid a minimum of $10 an hour, above the current $8.25 minimum wage. Quinn had unsuccessfully pushed for a statewide minimum wage increase, an issue Rauner said he supports only if coupled with buisness-friendly changes such as workers compensation rules. 

Rauner's action would also repeal orders that would have prevented state law enforcement from detaining a person based on immigration status, as well as additional protections for pregnant women in the workplace. But a law the state approved last year aimed at providing protections for women on the job remains on the books.

The former Governor responded to the repeal of his Executive Orders:

“The action of Bruce Rauner today to rescind these, I think, very necessary executive orders for the common good, I think is self-serving and anti-reform, and he ought to be ashamed of himself,” Quinn said.

No love lost there. Note that the former governor didn't include his successor's new title in making reference to him. In any event, the rescinding of the Executive Orders and final comment by the former governor effectively closes the book on the Quinn administration. 

Governor Rauner Grabs the Reins with Executive Orders

It remains to be seen how well Governor Rauner will be able to work with the General Assembly. Illinois' moribund fiscal condition is in need of a course correction, and that won't happen without a series of politically tough votes. Republicans and Democrats will have to cooperate by putting votes on difficult legislation, and Governor Rauner will probably need to be the fulcrum between both parties to make it happen. 

In the meantime, the Governor is using his Executive Order authority to begin shaping policy where he can act alone. He has thus far signed the following three Executive Orders:

Executive Order to Address the State's Fiscal Crisis
This Order directs the state agencies to identify and halt non-essential spending. This includes contracts and grants, with certain allowable exceptions. It also forbids any expenditures tied to supplemental funding. Vehicle purchases and out-of-state travel are also prohibited unless authorized following a review. In-state travel by state agency personnel is restricted and subject to approval. Surplus property must be identified and sold at auction and agencies are encouraged to adopt energy conservation practices to cut costs. 

Per David Ormsby at the Illinois Observer, the Director of the Governor's Office of Management and Budget has issued compliance guidelines for determining appropriate versus prohibited spending with respect to this Executive Order.

Executive Order to Ensure Ethical and Responsive Government
This Order imposes a one-year revolving door ban on lobbying state agencies, restricts gifts to state employees, requires state employees to file a statement of economic interest, and instructs the Governor's Office of Management and Budget (GOMB) to review employment contracts. This includes employment contracts entered into by units of local government, universities, boards, and commissions.

Executive Order Requiring Transparency Within State and Local Government 
This Order requires the posting of all political hires on the Illinois Transparency and Accountability Portal (ITAP) operated by the Department of Central Management Services (CMS). The Order also calls on the state to assist local governments in complying with the employment postings required under the ITAP law (this law was approved a few years ago, but implementation of the system was delayed for some time).

These are important reforms that set a new tone for the state bureaucracy while sending a signal to outside observers that things are changing in Illinois government. The Executive Orders are also a good way to build some momentum toward the ominous negotiations and votes that will be required for the more consequential and structural reforms that lay ahead. 

Rauner Administration Begins to Take Shape

Governor-elect Bruce Rauner will assume office tomorrow and several of his top staff and agency appointments were announced on Saturday. You can view a list of his key staff here and some of his agency/board appointments here.

At least two of his picks have been praised by Democrats: 

Governor-elect Rauner's choice to Chair the Illinois State Board of Education, pastor and former State Senator James Meeks, appears to be consuming most of the press coverage oxygen. Reverend Meeks is an African-American pastor of one of the largest churches in the state, a Rauner supporter, and a well-known advocate for overhauling the public education system. The appointment appears to be raising some eyebrows:

He may be a well-known church leader on the Southside, but that doesn't merit questioning the pick on those grounds. Nor are his views concerning same-sex marriage pertinent to his new job:

Same-sex marriage is the law in Illinois and it's not like former-Senator Meeks is going to use his new position to undermine the law. Governor-elect Rauner has shown no indication that he wants to ignite big debates over social issues. In this respect he's more Mark Kirk than Pat Buchanan. 

Meeks has a public record on education reform and it can't be assumed that he desires to push an agenda that would blur the lines between church and state within the public education system. Nor would I expect that he would tamper with the curriculum to advance his personal viewpoints. 

What is most germane is his reputation as an outspoken critic of Illinois' public school system and the funding inequities believed to financially disadvantage some school districts relative to others. He also supports charter schools, long-derided by teachers' unions. The funding plan supported by former-Senator Meeks is a more appropriate consideration about what his appointment could portend, as indicated by the tweet below:

If there's any doubt about his education-reform bona fides and desire to buck the public education system, this next tweet should cast them aside and provide an indication of why Meeks, in addition to the bipartisan nature of the appointment, was an attractive choice for Governor-elect Rauner and why he may come under attack:

What is Chicago Teacher Solidarity? From it's website:

A diverse coalition of local community organizations, labor activists, parents and students who support the Chicago Teachers Union in their fight for quality education.

There you have it. Meeks is a threat to the status quo, whose defenders will attempt to undermine him every step of the way.