You are here: Home / Updates / Springfield Update – End of Spring Session Wrapup – June 3, 2011

Springfield Update – End of Spring Session Wrapup – June 3, 2011

June 3, 2011 By

Rep. Greg Harris • 13th District

Springfield Update • June 3, 2011

 

End of Spring Session Wrapup

 

In one of the more productive and contentious legislative sessions in Illinois, the House adjourned completing many major tasks, but leaving others still undone.  Due to the troubles with the national economy, and past financial practices of the State it will still be many years before we return to a ‘normal’ equilibrium.  You can expect difficult budget years for the foreseeable future and substantial realignments of public policy as well.  Here are summaries of some of the more substantial pieces of legislation the General Assembly acted upon in the last few weeks, and my position on those issues:

 

Education Reform After difficult negotiation between the various education advocacy groups, the teachers unions and local school boards, SB7 made substantial reforms in school and teacher evaluation and tenure, collective bargaining and other areas.  It also allows the Chicago Board of Education to enter into collective bargaining over the length of the school day.  I voted “Yes”. You can read the legislation here:  http://ilga.gov/legislation/97/SB/PDF/09700SB0007enr.pdf

 

Public Employee Pensions One of the most controversial proposals of the session was the proposal by Rep. Tom Cross to change pension benefits for existing employees.  The proposed changes would have substantially increased employee contributions to remain in the Tier 1 system, or force current employees into either Tier 2 or a new defined contribution plan.  There were many objections to this proposal: 1) some legal experts contend it is unconstitutional to unilaterally force changes in pension plans for existing workers, 2) different groups of employees (Social Security and non-Social Security) would have been treated in vastly different ways with the potential for major diminution of retirement income, 3) even if the program would have worked as envisioned, forcing Tier 1 employees out of the system would have NOT reduced the unfunded liability of the State and in fact could have triggered a worse liability problem, and 4) could have forced a mass exodus of public workers, university professors and school teachers before its effective date.

 

I believe most reasonable stakeholders and observers are open to sensible changes in the existing pension and retiree health insurance programs to maintain their viability. But, the SB512 proposal was too much, too fast and unreasonable. Had this been called to a full House vote, I would have voted “No.” You can read the legislation here: http://ilga.gov/legislation/97/SB/PDF/09700SB0512ham001.pdf

 

ComEd/Ameren ‘Smart Grid’ and Rate Review was another highly publicized and discussed piece of legislation that would have provided guaranteed return on investment for electric utilities to invest in ‘Smart Grid” technology and upgrade transmission and distribution systems.  While I support investment in these technologies and the adoption of “greener” grid systems, I could not support this bill for three main reasons: 1) I believe rate increases should go through a rigorous public review process, 2) I believe this legislation would have benefitted larger commercial electric customers at the expense of residential customers, and finally 3) in the words of Exelon CEO John Rowe himself: “Smart Grid we are reluctant to embrace, because it costs too much, and we are not sure what good it would do”.  I voted “No”. The bill passed the House and Senate, but without a veto proof majority, so should the Governor veto or Amendatorily Veto the bill, its fate is uncertain.  The legislation is currently held in the Senate by a “Motion to Reconsider” and has not been sent to the Governor. You can see the legislation here:  http://ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1652&GAID=11&GA=97&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=57620&SessionID=84

 

Workers Comp Another major issue before us was reform of the Workers Comp system.  Changes in this system were a priority for Illinois business and industry, who believed that our costs were in the top tier of the entire nation and damaging our business climate.  Lengthy negotiation between business, labor, hospitals, doctors and trial lawyers culminated in 2 pieces of legislation (neither of which were universally agreed too), both of which I voted “Yes” for:

 

HB1933 would have abolished the Workers Comp system in Illinois and required claims to be adjudicated in court.  This was the ‘nuclear option’ solution if no other agreement could be reached. This bill passed the Senate and the House, and is held on Motion of Concurrence on the final amendments in the Senate. The legislation can be viewed here: http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700SB1933ham001&GA=97&SessionId=84&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=58088&DocNum=1933&GAID=11&Session=

 

The actual Workers Comp legislation that was finally passed was HB1968.  While labor, business and the lawyers were neutral or supportive, it was opposed by the doctors and hospitals. You can see the legislation here:  http://ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1698&GAID=11&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=58868&SessionID=84&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=97

 

I am very happy to have played a role in defeating concealed carry laws again in Illinois and also in defeating legislation that would have restricted a woman’s right to choose. Here are links to several other pieces of legislation which I was a yes vote on:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The final major topic is the state budget.  As you know, Illinois has had billions of dollars in structural deficits and billions more in backlogged unpaid bills for years now.  Last year we began the work of repairing the structural deficit with the tax increase, and this year continued with substantial cuts to the state budget to keep expenditures in line with anticipated revenues.  These cuts were painful and there will be more to come next year, barring a major expansion of economic activity in the state. There are major differences of opinion on how to proceed between both chambers of the legislature, and differing opinions between the respective caucuses as well. Here is a brief scorecard:

 

­The House Democrats and Republicans worked together to craft a budget based on more conservative revenue projections to be sure that State spending for FY12 was well within our means and would be less likely to result in deficit spending.  The Senate Democrats adopted the more generous COGFA revenue estimates which allowed their proposed budget to contain $1.1 billion more in spending than the budget passed by the House.  The Senate Republicans sought a budget with billions more in cuts than even the more conservative House estimates.

 

The House budget was passed and sent to the Governor for his signature. However, the Senate amended HB2189 (the reappropriation for Capital Projects) with an additional $430 million in spending authority beyond the House budgets.  The House moved to non-concur.  The Senate must decide whether to recede from their amendments. Should they not recede the capital reappropriation would be dead for now (as would the proposed additional spending).

 

There is a difference of opinion on whether there is sufficient appropriation authority with the extension of the FY2011 lapse period to allow already initiated capital projects to continue, and all new projects could be in jeopardy.  Another angle on this is that this delay will also allow the Supreme Court challenges to the Capital Bill to play out. Depending on the Court’s decision, we might have to redo all or part of it anyway.

 

On top of this, add in potential reductions to the Transfers Out contained in the Budget Implementation Bill (BIMP) and a $30 million problem in funding for the Community Service Grants for People with Mental Illness.  After the House non-concurred in the Senate’s budget increase, the Senate did not call SB2407 ham#2 for concurrence (to fix the Community Service Grant problems).  Speaker Madigan called for a Conference Committee to meet in the coming months to work out these differences, where both caucuses in each chamber appoint 3 members. (The House Members will be Reps. Crespo, Mautino and Yarbrough). Whether or not the Conference Committee meets is open to question should the other Leaders not appoint members.  Either way it is possible that the legislature will be back before the fall Veto Session to continue work on straightening out the budget problems and issues.

 

As always, I appreciate your thoughts and suggestions. I can be reached at 773 348 3434 or greg@gregharris.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed Under: Updates

Speak Your Mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.