Jefferson Embraces Guv’s Private-Insurance Plan, Updated X1

1 comment August 14th, 2008

As the Register Star reported this morning …

Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford, reversed course [Wednesday] and embraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s changes in his bill to help college students keep health insurance when they must leave school because of illness or injury.

Jefferson said he initially viewed Blagojevich’s veto as an attempt to sabotage his initiative, but later decided to accept the governor’s changes — which dramatically expanded its scope — because he believes in increasing health care.

“Plans do change sometimes,” Jefferson said.

So what does this mean? There are practical and political implications.

First, the practical: If the bill — as amended by the governor’s changes — becomes law, then employers across Illinois likely will be on the hook for the cost of additional insurance sought by employees with children between 18 and 30.

The core of Jefferson’s bill would require health insurers to continue covering for a year dependent, full-time college students who leave school or reduce classload because of a catastrophic illness or injury. Under Blagojevich’s additional language, parents would have the option of simply keeping children on their private health plan until they turn 26 — or, in the case of veterans, the age of 30.

Blagojevich refused to acknowledge last night that employers might face additional cost, but Blagojevich also has a history of ignoring or even denying reality. “I don’t know that it’s going to cost them anything,” Blagojevich said.

So what happens now? It’s up to the Senate to decide whether to follow accept the governor’s changes to Jefferson’s bill, as the House did last night. It’s not clear when the Senate might vote, as the chamber is not scheduled to meet again until after the November general election. (On Wednesday, the House and Senate were meeting in a special session Blagojevich had called.) Blagojevich said Wednesday night that he would soon reach out to Senate President Emil Jones Jr., D-Chicago, concerning the schedule for a vote.

And this takes us to the political implications. These days in Springfield, most all significant action must be viewed through the lens of the ongoing feud between Blagojevich/Jones and House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago. This move by Jefferson, a member of Madigan’s exclusive leadership team, is no exception.

By reversing position and accepting the governor’s changes to his bill, I believe Jefferson — backed by Madigan — accomplished the following:

1) He called the governor’s bluff. Blagojevich’s amendatory veto of Jefferson’s bill was widely viewed, by Jefferson and others, as a clear attempt to sabotage Jefferson’s bill in the course of Blagojevich’s feud with Madigan. By calling Blagojevich’s bluff, Jefferson (again, backed by Madigan) stunned other lawmakers, the business community and, apparently also, the governor. Rather than making a predictable move by fighting the governor’s changes, Jefferson & Madigan surprised him — and may keep him guessing in the future.

2) He neutralized a future attack by Blagojevich. Had Jefferson led the House in rejecting the governor’s changes to his bill, Blagojevich no doubt would have blasted the House — loudly and repeatedly — for voting to deny children health care. That’s just how Blagojevich works.

3) He kicked a political hot potato into the lap of Jones — Blagojevich’s ally and Madigan’s adversary. Jones must now reconcile the governor’s health-care initiative (riding on Jefferson’s bill) and fierce opposition from the business community. Jefferson and Madigan didn’t have to reconcile any fierce opposition from the business community because, quite frankly, the House voted on the governor’s amendment to Jefferson’s bill about an hour after it became clear that Jefferson would move to accept the amendment. It happened in a flash. There was no committee hearing. There was little informed debate on the House floor because other lawmakers had to spontaneously get up to speed on the governor’s changes to the bill. But now that this bill as amended is just one or two Senate votes from becoming law, the business community is paying attention. And it will be up to Jones to deal with them. (The business community, by the way, perhaps should not have assumed — and many others did — that Jefferson’s bill was all but dead after the governor amended it. Last night, the Illinois Chamber was completely taken off guard.)

Update 1

I should add that there’s also a constitutional angle.

There is much debate in Springfield about whether Blagojevich has the constitutional authority to amend a bill in this way. Yes, the governor of Illinois does have the power of amendatory veto. And that means he may veto a bill by suggesting changes to it, sending it back to lawmakers for their consideration of his changes. But the governor may not use an amendatory veto to wholesale re-write a bill, courts have held.

During Wednesday night’s floor debate over the governor’s changes to Jefferson’s bill, House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago, all but declared that the House Democrats’ motivation behind accepting the governor’s changes to Jefferson’s bill was to create a new test case for the courts.

“I think that the lack of clarity from the court decisions may mean that it’s time for a second crack for the judicial branch. Maybe we ought to invite the question before the courts whether this particularly amendatory veto, for example, does go beyond the scope of that authority provided in the Constitution. For that reason, I would suggest that an eye vote may help us answer this question that has been so contentious between the two branches ever since 1971.”

Jefferson’s Health Care Fix a Victim of Political Feud; Updated X1

Add comment August 8th, 2008

Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford, set out to help people.

He sponsored a bill requiring health insurance policies to continue providing coverage to dependent, full-time college students who must leave school or reduce their classload to part-time because of a catastrophic illness or injury. His fellow lawmakers approved that plan overwhelmingly; the House voted 105-3 and the Senate voted 56-1, sending the measure to Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s desk.

Little did Jefferson know that his bill might amount to nothing more than ammunition in Blagojevich’s political war with House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago. Now Jefferson is staring at a bill that may be dead. And if it’s dead, he will need to start all over again by re-introducing it and maneuvering it through the legislative process all over again.

What did Blagojevich accomplish in hijacking and possibly killing Jefferson’s bill? He took a swipe at Madigan and other House Democrats. He won a day of favorable publicity. And that’s that.

So much for Jefferson trying to help people.

On Wednesday, Blagojevich vetoed Jefferson’s bill to add language giving parents the option of keeping their children on their private health plan until they turn 26 — or, in the case of veterans, the age of 30.

That may sound like a well-intentioned initiative from the governor. But the fact is that lawmakers — both Republicans and Democrats — are tired of Blagojevich attempting to force his will upon them.

Blagojevich, notorious for his absence from Springfield while lawmakers are in session, didn’t bother attempting to maneuver his initiative through the legislative process. Instead, he hijacked a bill sponsored by somebody who had already done that work.

Oh, and that person — Jefferson — just happened to be a Madigan surrogate.

Jefferson told the Register Star: “Whatever feud might be going on between Speaker Madigan and the governor, I’m not a part of that. And I don’t think that you need to make me a part of that by hijacking one of my bills.”

But Jefferson is a member of Madigan’s exclusive leadership team. That means he joins high-level meetings not attended by other House Democrats. And it means he’s under additional pressure to act in lockstep with Madigan — particularly when it counts, like when Madigan is waging a political war with the governor. In Blagojevich’s view, Jefferson is very much a Madigan guy.

It’s no accident that Blagojevich targeted one of Jefferson’s bills.

And if there was any doubt that Blagojevich had escalated the war by personally attacking Madigan’s closest allies, any such doubt was removed Friday morning when Blagojevich used an appearance at the State Fair to verbally attack Rep. Gary Hannig, D-Litchfield, for helping Madigan engineer the defeat of Blagojevich’s capital plan. Hannig is one of Madigan’s top lieutenants.

In 2007, Blagojevich’s administration canned the wife of Tim Mapes, Madigan’s trusted chief of staff.

There’s a chance that lawmakers could vote to override the governor’s veto of Jefferson’s bill, thereby putting Jefferson’s bill — without the governor’s language — into law. But it’s not such a great chance. For as long as Senate President Emil Jones Jr., D-Chicago, continues to serve as Blagojevich’s ally in chief, then it’s unlikely Jones will allow the Senate to vote on an override.

Lawmakers are even less likely to vote to accept the governor’s changes.

If both chambers of the Legislature don’t agree on whether to accept or reject the governor’s changes, then the bill is dead.

Blagojevich certainly knew all of this when he decided to hijack Jefferson’s bill. He did it anyway.

Update 1

Wow, Blagojevich sure did rip into Gary Hannig, the Madigan lieutenant, at the State Fair today. The audio is here.

He also ripped a group of 10 House Democrats he labeled the “double-dippers” — 10 state lawmakers also on the City of Chicago or Cook County payroll.

Basically, the governor argued that these 10 people, who all enjoy two paychecks, are hypocrites for sticking with Madigan, who engineered the defeat of Blagojevich’s capital plan. Blagojevich says the capital plan would generate hundreds of thousands of jobs.

According to a Blagojevich spokeswoman, the 10 “double-dippers” are:

Rep. Edward Acevedo
Rep. Luis Arroyo
Rep. John Bradley
Rep. Annazette Collins
Rep. John D’Amico
Rep. Monique Davis
Rep. Deborah Graham
Rep. Joe Lyons
Rep. Susana Mendoza
Rep. Cynthia Soto

“There’s nothing more important than getting our economy going in Springfield, in Decatur, in Rockford, in Carbondale, in Danville — than investing in our infrastructure and putting people to work,” Blagojevich said.

“And we have the Republican leaders supporting the capital program. We have the Democrats in the Senate supporting the capital program. And Mike Madigan and 10 double-dipping Chicago Democrats who work for the City of Chicago full-time and then have part-time jobs as state reps killed the jobs bill that impacts people in downstate Illinois,” he said. “So if people feel there is this sense that some from Chicago don’t care about them, just look at that roll call and I can appreciate their frustration.”

Yep, it’s safe to say the political war is on.

Jefferson Jazzes up Speech with Soup, Roots

Add comment July 1st, 2008

The generally understated Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford, is on a roll with slick one-liners.

In today’s story on the state budget, Jefferson used a soup metaphor to explain why he doesn’t believe House lawmakers ought to return to Springfield to continue working on the budget.

“I’m willing to come back to Springfield if there’s something genuine on the table,” he said. “But if it’s the same thing, then why bother? It’s the same old soup warmed over.”

And in a recent story about Obama’spresidential bid, Jefferson said he figured an Obama administration could be good for Illinois. Obama’s roots are here, after all.

“These are his roots, and you always want to make sure that your roots are taken care of.”

Out-of-Character Morrissey Spits in Madigan’s Eye, Updated X2

2 comments June 13th, 2008

If Rockford Mayor Larry Morrissey has been anything toward state government leaders — even when they haven’t been Rockford’s friend — it’s diplomatic.

When unpopular Gov. Rod Blagojevich tried to deep-six Morrissey’s chief legislative priority last spring, Morrissey had nary a critical word about Blagojevich. And though Rockford’s own state senator, Republican Dave Syverson, has for the second year in a row failed to advance Morrissey’s objectives in the Senate, Morrissey hasn’t offered much criticism about Syverson, either.

And so I was particularly surprised to see Morrissey join a recent staged event in Rockford dedicated to bashing House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago. From Chuck Sweeny’s column:

Winnebago County Board Chairman Scott Christiansen said Madigan was stifling democracy and demanded, “Mr. Speaker, pass the (word I can’t use) bill.” Mayor Larry Morrissey, not to be outdone by the county, said maybe it’s time for voters to change the state’s rules by having a constitutional convention, something they’ll be asked on the Nov. 4 ballot.

“Who here voted for Mike Madigan?” the mayor shouted. “I’m angry, I’m (word I can’t use) off.”

It’s true that voters in Rockford did not elect Madigan. Voters in Madigan’s district on the southwest side of Chicago elected him to the House. Other Democratic representatives — including Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford — elected him speaker of their chamber.

It’s also true that Madigan quashed a recent plan for a new statewide capital construction plan — a plan backed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the state’s other three legislative leaders. The plan could have meant more than $100 million in funding for local infrastructure projects.

In a news conference Saturday night, Madigan said he supports a new capital plan. But he said Blagojevich — his fellow Democrat and political adversary — must first modify his governing style.

He also undercut plans to expand gambling and lease the state lottery — two ways in which supporters of the defeated plan hoped to raise money to support it. Madigan prefers an income tax hike.

“It’s the fairest tax. If you make money, you pay the tax. If you don’t, you don’t pay the tax,” he said, adding he was not actually proposing an income tax hike.

But it’s also true that Madigan has arguably sent more state dollars to Rockford than any other legislator — including Jefferson, Syverson and former Rep. Doug Scott, D-Rockford — since Rep. Zeke Giorgi, the city’s last great Springfield mover and shaker, died in 1993.

In 2002, Madigan secured $14.5 million in grants for Rockford, including $3.9 million for MetroCentre improvements, $3 million for water-main extensions and $2.5 million for two additional levels to the Pioneer parking deck. The money was part of $1.6 billion that former Gov. George Ryan and legislative leaders set aside to cement support for Ryan’s Illinois FIRST capital program.

As Sweeny noted in his column, Zeke was a Madigan mentor, and Madigan has always had a certain affection for Rockford. To this day, Madigan has framed photos of Zeke and Zeke’s family in his sparsely decorated Statehouse office. He has a conference room named after Zeke.

Over the last two years, Madigan has consistently gone out of his way to support Rockford initiatives sponsored by Jefferson, who last spring became a member of Madigan’s exclusive leadership team. Morrissey’s office didn’t get its anti-truancy plan — one of the mayor’s chief legislative initiative — to legislators until late April, a little more than a month before the end of spring session. But Madigan’s staff worked with Jefferson to twice maneuver Morrissey’s plan through the House before session ended.

Madigan’s staff also was instrumental in winning approval of Morrissey’s top priority last spring — a change in state law that allowed Rockford to impose an extra 1-percentage-point sales tax six months earlier than law otherwise would have allowed. When Blagojevich vetoed Morrissey’s expedited sales tax plan, Madigan’s staff was again key to winning the Legislature’s override of Blagojevich’s veto.

Madigan helped Morrissey even though Morrissey, running as an independent, ousted Madigan’s ally — Democrat Doug Scott — from the mayor’s office in 2005.

Jefferson is a well-intentioned legislator. And over the last two years, he was worked to assert a higher profile for himself. But without Madigan’s staff, I’m not sure either of these Morrissey initiatives would have advanced, given the considerable obstacles they faced.

Morrissey has said much over the last two years about his desire to hire a lobbyist in Springfield. But Rockford already has a virtual lobbyist: Michael Cassidy, a Madigan staffer who works closely with Jefferson and, by extension, Morrissey and his staff. Cassidy has coached Jefferson on everything from drafting to passing bills. And when Morrissey and his staff have worked to press their agenda, Cassidy coached them too.

Madigan killed the capital plan in the course of his ongoing feud with Blagojevich, whose stature has crumbled under a federal probe of his administration. Call Madigan’s move on the capital plan what you will — irresponsible, petty, vindictive. But it is what it is. Madigan isn’t budging.

Madigan withstood pressure from Blagojevich and every other legislative leader, not to mention members of his own caucus, and he killed the capital program anyway. His determination to undermine Blagojevich trumps other political and practical considerations. Did Morrissey, Christiansen and others at the “bash Madigan” event in Rockford truly think they would muster the pressure necessary to finally break Madigan?

Madigan is famous for his attention to detail. I’d bet it’s safe to say he has already taken notice of Morrissey’s “bash Madigan” remarks. I’m eager to see how much Madigan helps Morrissey now.

UPDATE 1

Rep. Jim Sacia, R-Pecatonica, authors a weekly column that he distributes to local newspapers. Here’s the relevant portion of last week’s column:

What a gutsy lady. Though I often disagree with Representative Julie Hamos (D-Evanston) on issues she brings before the House, she hit the nail on the head last Saturday evening at about 10:30. Ms. Hamos expressed her anger and disgust on the House floor (and on the record) as she chastised Speaker Michael Madigan for refusing to allow our $31 billion capital jobs and infrastructure plan from moving forward. The bill passed out of the Senate with bi-partisan support, but was manipulated in the House and killed with procedural maneuvering by the Speaker’s leadership team.

Ms. Hamos stated for all to hear that Speaker Madigan didn’t want this Governor traveling the state for the next two years cutting ribbons and accepting accolades. What a shame. 700,000 jobs – good jobs repairing and building roads, bridges and schools – lost; at least for now. Northwest Illinois stood to benefit greatly as did every part of our state.

Former U. S. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, a Republican, and former Congressman and current Southern Illinois University President Glenn Poshard, a Democrat, had been traveling the state garnering support for a capital jobs bill at the Governor’s request. You could literally feel the excitement building as the bill passed out of the Senate Saturday afternoon. The Governor himself worked very hard for the bill’s passage. Sadly, many of us recognized early on that the Speaker would come up with some maneuver to prevent it from passing the House.

The Speaker’s excuse is that he believes the funding mechanism is not correct. He says there should be some “pain” involved. (Translation: he wants an income tax increase). He also has said that you can’t trust this Governor with that kind of money. Certainly the trust issue is significant. But is it significant enough to prevent the creation of 700,000 new jobs and to punish the 13 million people in this state without even trying to come to consensus? I personally think not and I believe most lawmakers agree with me.

The Governor was on the floor with us Saturday night talking with individual members about the capital bill. From my seat, which is literally in the first row right in front of the podium, I was able to watch what appeared to be a cordial exchange between the Governor and Speaker Madigan. I’m told, however, that it was anything but cordial. The Speaker’s press secretary, Steve Brown, said “The speaker, based on his experience, has determined that meetings with this Governor are not a productive use of his time.” What a shame. Isn’t it time to move this state forward?

UPDATE 2

Blasts from the past …

During Morrissey’s 2005 campaign to unseat Scott, both Blagojevich and Madigan worked to save Scott and defeat Morrissey.

Blagojevich said access for Scott is, in fact, a matter of friendship. He said he’d “like to think” that he’d take phone calls from the Rockford mayor regardless of his or her party affiliation, but that the nature of his “close, personal relationship” to Scott means phone calls get answered on the fly.

“If my brother calls, I get that call directly. When Doug calls, I get that call directly,” Blagojevich said. “A lot of other calls, you tend to get it on a sheet at the end of the day.”

Madigan, who also is chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party, was less diplomatic. He implied the absence of Scott would be Rockford’s loss.

“He’s got a personal relationship with me,” Madigan said. “So when he calls, I take his call. If I get a call from the mayor of Peoria, I may not take it; I may not return it. I don’t even know who he is, the mayor of Peoria.”

Later that year, Morrissey made his Capitol lobbying debut.

As he departed the Capitol Thursday, Morrissey brushed aside a question about whether tension underscored his meetings with Blagojevich and Madigan.

“What we’ve got are two professionals who want to get progress done,” he said. “They understand that the mayor of the city of Rockford, no matter who it is, is the leader of a region of close to 300,000 people. They recognize that. Plus, Speaker Madigan is a Notre Dame guy, so we had that in common.”

Red-Light Cameras Go Down

Add comment May 28th, 2008

Lawmakers have already authorized red-light cameras in Chicago, one of the nation’s hotbeds for the technology. But they drew the line last night at authorizing them in Rockford and other communities around Illinois.

SPRINGFIELD — Lawmakers on Tuesday rejected Rockford Mayor Larry Morrissey’s plan for red-light cameras at intersections after several senators from both parties and from around Illinois derided what they called a government money grab and “Big Brother” intrusion.

“It’s anti-American,” said Sen. Rickey Hendon, D-Chicago. “It’s against our rights as American citizens to live free. It’s against the Constitution of the United States.”

Just 26 senators supported the plan — four fewer votes than necessary for passage — while 24 opposed it. Sen. John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat who sponsored the plan, said he was weighing whether to ask later this week for another vote.

Eight senators did not vote on the bill, and another voted “present.” The roll call is here.

Sen. Dave Syverson, R-Rockford, and Sen. Brad Burzynski, R-Clare, are longstanding opponents of the plan.

“For people to say that this isn’t about revenue, I think, is being disingenuous,” said Sen. Dave Syverson, R-Rockford. “This is about revenue.”

Sen. Brad Burzynski, a Clare Republican who represents the far east edge of Rockford, added in a statement, “It’s more about issuing citations and bringing in money than public safety.”

Syverson filed an amendment to the bill to make it more difficult for cities such as Rockford to implement red light cameras. Syverson stood on the Senate floor and criticized the plan, then voted for it. Burzynski voted against it.

Sen. John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat who sponsored the plan, saw fit to mention during debate that Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford, had not contacted him regarding the bill. Jefferson did his job in the House by shepherding the bill through his chamber.

But it’s also common for lawmakers with a strong interest in their legislation — this was one of Morrissey’s chief priorities, after all — to reach across the Capitol rotunda and lobby members of the opposite chamber. One wouldn’t expect Syverson and Burzynski to promote the bill in the Senate; they said they were opposed.

Winters: Jones sees Jefferson as black first, Madigan’s guy second

3 comments May 9th, 2008

Rep. Dave Winters, R-Shirland, recently made what struck me as a remarkable observation about the politics of race and leadership in the General Assembly. In response, Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford, provided some insight into how he sees those powerful, yet delicate, dynamics.

Jefferson

I was talking to Winters about the status of Rockford Mayor Larry Morrissey’s truancy agenda — sponsored by Jefferson — and he said he was confident that Jefferson could garner Senate President Emil Jones Jr.’s support for Morrissey’s plan once it clears the House and lands in the Senate.

I’m no expert on Jefferson’s relationship with Jones, I told Winters, but I wouldn’t think Jefferson would necessarily have the inside track to Jones. Last spring, Jefferson joined House Speaker Michael Madigan’s leadership team. Jones and Madigan, both Chicago Democrats, are feuding. So my first assumption would be that Jones would view Jefferson as a Madigan surrogate and would therefore be hostile toward him, I told Winters.

Winters

“I would assume that he is not seen as Madigan’s guy as much as he is the Black Caucus guy,” Winters responded. “Emil probably has very good relations with the Black Caucus.”

Members of the House Black Caucus — the collection of African-American state representatives, all Democrats — pick three members of Madigan’s exclusive leadership team. Last spring, they picked Jefferson for one of those three seats.

Like Jefferson, Jones also is black.

“Blood is stronger than water,” Winters said.

Jefferson disagreed with Winters’ interpretation. In fact, Jefferson suggested the sentiment may be just the opposite of what Winters suggested — that perhaps Jones is disappointed in black House members for following Madigan’s lead.

“Jones has some animosity toward the House members as it relates to the Black Caucus because we are under Mike Madigan’s reign,” Jefferson said.

“Well, he’s the speaker of the House. That’s who we supposedly follow. (Jones is) upset sometimes that maybe we don’t follow his lead the way he feels we should. And that’s OK. That’s his perception of the situation. Just like Emil holds his members accountable, we’re accountable to Mike Madigan. And because we’re accountable to Mike Madigan, it doesn’t get us favoritism with the president of the Senate.”

Jones spokeswoman Cindy Davidsmeyer declined to comment.

Jones

“(Jones) views that sometimes it’s maybe not (the House Black Caucus) being in his corner as it relates to a lot of things. Well, that’s not the case,” Jefferson said.

“If we’ve got to pick an issue, we’re probably going to be more supportive of the House issue, under Mike Madigan’s reign, than we would under his leadership as president of the Senate. I don’t think we’re enemies. But I don’t think that I can get anything done (in the Senate) any sooner than (Sen.) Dave Syverson (R-Rockford) in the Senate. If anyone is going to champion a bill, I’d certainly want to go and talk to President Jones about the bill. But I think that we need to pick it up on that side with Sen. Syverson to make sure he’s doing everything.”

Jefferson concluded, “We need to be able to cut across party lines. And the fact that I’m black and Emil is black, I don’t think carries a lot of weight with Emil at this point in time.”

Sticking Landlords With the Bill

Add comment March 10th, 2008

I caught up this morning with Rep. Harry Osterman, a Chicago Democrat spearheading legislation to make landlords pay for the cost of housing tenants when the landlord’s property is condemned.

Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford, is co-sponsoring the measure, and the mayor’s office is backing it, as the Register Star reported this morning.

“If a municipality takes an action against a building with condemnation or makes a ruling on safety hazards, and the people are forced to vacate the building because it is deemed unhealthy by the municipality, many of these people don’t have the means to go and find another place to live. They’re going to go live with their relatives,” Osterman told me by phone.

“So what we want to do is have this individual slumlord or landlord, who’s responsible for this building, pay to move someone to another place to live. If for whatever reason that (landlord) is not able to do that, we would enable municipalities to front-end those costs, and then to try to get them back through a civil action against the landlord. The bottom line is what we’re trying to do is if there are renters, who through no fault of their own are in a building that is in disrepair and has been condemned, we want to make sure they have some kind of protections.”

Osterman’s bill:

The landlord would need to pay each displaced tenant $2,000 per unit or three times the monthly rent, whichever is greater, plus the tenant’s deposit, interest and prepaid rent, within seven days of getting a condemnation notice, under the bill.

Critics complain that the measure doesn’t recognize the possibility that a tenant may have caused the damage to a rental unit, prompting the city to condemn it. Osterman said he is prepared to negotiate a provision making that clear.

“What I have committed to do is to work with them to strengthen that provision, to very explicitly and flesh out in an amendment, that this is not the tenant’s fault, but this is something due to the inaction of the owner,” he said.

What’s Madigan Up To? Updated X3

1 comment February 18th, 2008

A great pastime at the Capitol is speculating on the objectives and motives of House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago. Madigan seldom speaks in public and he generally is the last of state leaders to show his cards.

When he does show them, he tends to stake out a contrarian position. By positioning himself opposite other interests, he creates leverage to accomplish his goals — whatever they may be.

This spring session, Madigan was the first to show a card when he spread word last week that no major initiative will clear the House, the chamber that he controls, unless it contains language effectively pre-empting Gov. Rod Blagojevich from attaching rules elaborating on its thrust.

It’s uncanny for Madigan to announce such a radical position before the governor has a chance to set forth his own strategy Wednesday in his State of the State/budget address. Then again, Blagojevich and Madigan are great political adversaries. Together with Senate President Emil Jones Jr., a third Chicago Democrat allied with Blagojevich, the two last year faced off in a battle last so fierce that session literally dragged from the spring straight into this year.

But to truly understand the extraordinary nature of Madigan’s pre-emptive strike, you must consider the actual substance of his plan. By requiring all major bills to include language prohibiting the governor or his agencies from attaching administrative rules, the strategy could potentially shut down the legislative process.

In other words, Madigan has kicked off the session with a strategy that may do nothing but disrupt and delay the legislative process.

If Jones continues to side with Blagojevich through this session, he is unlikely to adopt Madigan’s strategy in the Senate. If the Senate rejects the strategy, and Madigan refuses to budge, it will be impossible for the two chambers to agree on legislation. And even if Jones does capitulate, and both the Senate and House do agree on legislation including the no-rules language, the governor could simply veto the language and send each bill back to lawmakers.

Lawmakers would then need to decide whether to override the governor. But I’m getting way ahead of myself here.

The bottom line is that Madigan does not often bluff. If he does bluff, he is not one to quickly go back on it.

Blagojevich and Jones, for their part, don’t tend to quickly swallow Madigan’s wishes.

UPDATE 1

Rep. Chuck Jefferson. D-Rockford, supports Madigan’s new strategy. Jefferson is a member of Madigan’s leadership team, so this is not surprising.

Jefferson echoed the speaker’s position, articulated last week by House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, that the governor directly assaulted the Legislature when he declared that the body’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, which reviews the governor’s administrative rules, lacks the power to reject his rules.

“I think it’s a good idea if in fact the governor is going to continue to try and pull the political maneuvers to undercut what JCAR is in place to do,” Jefferson said. “I think it’s to the governor’s advantage at this point, but he doesn’t seem to think so.”

UPDATE 2

Rockford GOP Sen. Dave Syverson also supports Madigan’s strategy, at least the concept, he said.

Syverson said state agencies have misinterpreted his bills when they write the rules, but he could not think of any examples. He said he is then forced to pass another bill to clarify the first legislation.

“I agree with the Speaker to the extent that we need to put more in there in regards to the major issues because the governor has taken more leeway to expand definitions … taking it way beyond what the intent was and we need to rein that in,” Syverson said.
“The House version may go too far but the what’s currently in place does not go far enough. There may be some room for compromise, which we hope we can do.”

UPDATE 3

In line with the House Republican party line, Rep. Dave Winters, R-Shirland, disagrees with the House Democrats’ plan. He said rule-writing needs to be done by people with the expertise in that bill, such as those at the state agencies.

“I think the administrative rules should be written by the agencies that are to administer them,” Winters said, “not by a bunch of legislators who are not bureaucrats.”

Jefferson: Steady as She Goes Updated X1

Add comment January 23rd, 2008

Rep. Chuck Jefferson’s fundraising seems relatively light. In the last six months of last year, Jefferson, D-Rockford, raised $17,806.72 and spent $17,774.26.

He had $28,676.76 on hand at the close of the reporting period.

Then again, Jefferson has no challenger in the next election. He doesn’t need gobs of money to defend himself.

Jefferson’s biggest contributions include:

Yes, Jefferson’s campaign apparently misspelled the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association on its disclosure statement. Either that or Jefferson is getting substantial support from lawyers who practice on trails.