Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x2 *** Welch and Durkin meet about cooling down House chaos
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to today’s edition
Posted in:
Saying private dollars shouldn’t be used to pay public employees, an Illinois lawmaker has introduced legislation that would prevent Gov. J.B. Pritzker from paying state employees out of his pocket on top of the salaries taxpayers already pay for.
Pritzker doles out $1.5 million a year to subsidize the salaries of 15 employees in his administration in addition to the $1.6 million taxpayers pay.
Senate Bill 2213 introduced by state Sen. Jason Plummer, R-Edwardsville, provides that no state employee may receive compensation from any private party for their work within the scope of his or her employment by a state agency.
“Pretty audacious that it is even happening, but on top of that, the complete lack of transparency on the issue is what really caught my attention as well,” Plummer said.
The Senator’s bill would amend the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act. But there’s also the Campaign Disclosure Act which allows Sen. Plummer and others to use their campaign funds to give their own staffs a pay boost…
Officeholders, candidates and committees are allowed to spend campaign funds to offset the “customary and reasonable” expenses of an officeholder carrying out their governmental duties or performing public service functions. For example, a member of the General Assembly may use campaign funds to operate a district office. For more information about expenditures and for a more detailed explanation of the prohibitions, read section 9-8.10 of the Campaign Disclosure Act.
* Daily Herald…
Hawthorne Race Course Thursday picked up one more of Arlington Park’s shuttered off-track betting parlors — this one in Rockford — giving the Cicero racetrack its maximum 16 allowed under state statute.
But there’s legislation proceeding in Springfield this week that would remove that cap.
* Media advisory…
Many farm equipment manufacturers prevent Illinois farmers from accessing the software tools they need to fix their modern tractors. That forces farmers to turn to corporate-authorized dealers for many problems, which can lead to high repair bills and delays that can put their crops—and their livelihoods—at risk. While farmers have always relied on local dealerships for help, more and more those dealerships have been bought up by large chain networks, further reducing competition and exacerbating the problems farmers already face due to repair restrictions.
WHAT: The release of a new report, “Deere in the Headlights II,” which demonstrates how consolidated dealerships have become and how these large chains can reduce choice for Illinois farmers. We will reveal which tractor-maker’s dealerships are most consolidated and talk about how this trend impacts farmers’ livelihoods and how the Right to Repair could dramatically increase farmers’ repair choices.
WHO: Representative Michelle Mussman, author of the Digital Fair Repair Act (HB3061)
Robert Davies, Incoming President at Illinois Farmers Union
Willie Cade, Midwest Regional Director at Repair.org
David J Lee, Associate at Illinois PIRGWHEN: Thursday, February 24, 2022 @ 10:00 AM to 10:30 AM CT
* From Friday…
More than 500 Illinoisans mobilized today for an environmental justice-focused lobby day and rally. Participants urged their legislators to pass bills that address environmental injustices impacting historically marginalized communities across Illinois. The environmental justice movement strives to ensure communities disproportionately affected by industrial pollution, environmental racism and institutional neglect are protected from environmental and health hazards. Today, Illinoisans raised their voices to make it clear: environmental injustice has no home in Illinois.
In meetings with their members of the Illinois General Assembly, concerned advocates lobbied for the Environmental Justice Act (EJ Act HB4093/SB2906), which would reform the industrial permitting process and give environmental justice communities a greater say in development projects. They also advocated for bills protecting communities that are home to aging power plants (HB4358/SB3073), as well as a technical fix to the historic Climate and Equitable Jobs Act (HB4390/SB3866) and voting rights legislation (SB828).
“Black, Brown and Indigenous communities across Illinois have disproportionately experienced generations of concentrated, toxic industrial pollution resulting in costly, chronic health impacts,” said JD Dixon, rally emcee and environmental justice organizer with the United Congregations of Metro East. “The only way to equitably reform zoning policies that have fueled environmental racism is to give residents more say in the process for rewriting and implementing those policies.”
The EJ Act, an effort led by the Chicago Environmental Justice Network, aims to reform the state’s air permitting processes, give environmental justice communities a greater say in the development projects sited within their communities and require a review of the cumulative impact of proposed air pollution sources.
* Press release…
Illinois will soon fund and maintain a 24-hour suicide prevention hotline available to people in crisis, thanks to legislation sponsored by State Senator Laura Fine (D-Glenview).
“Suicide is one of the leading causes of death in our country,” Senator Fine said. “It saddens me that many of these deaths could have been prevented if mental health resources were more accessible. Providing access to behavioral and mental health resources with this hotline will be essential to saving lives.”
Senator Fine’s measure would create the Statewide 9-8-8 Trust Fund, which would be used by the Department of Human Services to establish and maintain a statewide 9-8-8 suicide prevention and mental health crisis system.
The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline’s 9-8-8 number will be live across the nation by July 2022, pursuant to the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act of 2020. However, people in crisis should continue to call the Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255) until then.
“Mental health is as important as physical health. There should be accessible and quality resources available in the event of an emergency,” Senator Fine said. “This initiative will make treatment in times of crisis accessible for anyone who dials 9-8-8.”
SB 2945 passed the Senate floor Wednesday. It now goes to the House for further consideration.
* Press release…
The Illinois Grape Growers and Vintners Alliance today urged Illinois Senators to support Senate Bill 2976 to help provide relief for Illinois wineries that have experienced a drop in tourism and increase in licensing fees during the COVID-19 pandemic and provide an equitable pathway for growth for the industry.
SB 2976, sponsored by Sen. Rachelle Crowe, would reduce a significant licensing fee increase imposed on Illinois wineries during the height of the pandemic when many wineries struggled to stay afloat. The bill would also provide balance for wine production and self-distribution limits compared to counterparts in the beer and spirits industries.
While Illinois is one of the top wine-drinking states in the country, and the Illinois wine industry has grown in esteem, the state’s wineries are prohibited from producing and selling their wine at levels that compare with their peers in the beer and spirits industries.
As a growing attraction in many Illinois communities, from Chicago to Carbondale, the changes under SB 2976 would allow the state’s wine industry to grow, recover from the pandemic, and continue providing good jobs and contributing to local economies.
“With ongoing challenges created by the pandemic, the wine industry in Illinois is still working to bounce back and prove its resilience,” Sen. Crowe said. “By increasing the production cap and allowing makers to sell more wine directly to retailers, Illinois can offer support to one of its vital but struggling industries.”
Specifically, SB 2976 will:
• Reduce a 60% increase in licensing fees for Illinois wineries implemented last year;
• Increase limits on wine production and self-distribution on par with the beer and spirits industries; and
• Eliminate negative impacts of a loss of premise license for wineries that decide to expand manufacturing operations to include beer or spirits.“For more than a decade now, we have been deprived of the right to self-distribute our own wines directly to our small volume customers, liquor stores, restaurants and other venues that wish to offer our products,” said Andres Basso, general manager at Lynfred Winery in Roselle. “We have worked arduously to attract and maintain distributors interested in our brand to keep our business operating. It would seem fair that we would be able to sell cases of wines directly to those customers without having to involve a middleman or other large distributors just like brewers and distillers do in our state.”
“If we had the ability to increase the volume of wine that we’re distributing, we could expand our coverage area and better serve retailers with more product variety at a lower price – all of which would benefit our consumers,” said Jim Ewers, general manager of Blue Sky Vineyard in Makanda. “Allowing us to produce and directly distribute more would also lead to more work, more jobs, and greater benefits to our local economy as well. It really makes no sense to keep these caps in place that have only limited our growth.”
“With our winery sitting directly across the river from Missouri, we see firsthand the differences in the way the state of Missouri treats their wineries compared to Illinois,” said Mike Nikonovich, owner of the Grafton Winery in Grafton, Ill. “Missouri’s license fee is capped at $300 annually, with very minimal rules related to production and self-distribution. Additionally, Illinois wineries pay over $2 more per case in state gallonage taxes than Missouri wineries. While that may not seem like much, it does add up over the course of the year, especially when you also factor in the higher Illinois property taxes.”
According to a 2019 economic impact report commissioned by the Illinois Grape Growers and Vintners Alliance before the pandemic, the Illinois wine industry had a $5.7 billion total economic impact. The report also found the Illinois wine industry:
• Paid $878 million in federal, state and local taxes;
• Employed over 52,000 full-time jobs;
• Paid $2.15 billion in wages; and
• Entertained more than 278,000 tourists.The study defines the Illinois wine industry as wine grape growers, wine producers, wine wholesalers, wine retailers (on and off premise), wine tourism, wine research and education, and wine grape growing associations in the state.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 11:42 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x2 *** Welch and Durkin meet about cooling down House chaos
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to today’s edition
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
So does the governor have to disclose how much ‘extra’ he is giving each employee? If that is not the case that would seem to be a reasonable requirement.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 11:50 am
Paying folks top dollar or what he thinks they’re worth is probably fine, but the source being from his own pocket is questionable since I think it creates a pretty straightforward conflict of interest for someone who is still bound to follow the laws of our state.
My big question would be about how much he’s paid his staff to have them show up and be like “keep all of the Rauner appointees and other folks that actively oppose your efforts employed instead of replacing them with professionals that agree with the direction you want to take the state.”
Comment by Candy Dogood Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 12:03 pm
It seems hypocritical on my part as I do not drink and I do not gamble, but Illinois must get on board with “racino’s” at horse tracks and help the fledgling wine industry in this state. Neither are big buck revenue generating in the grand scheme of things but both are destination activities that with help smaller communities.
The thoroughbred industry in Indiana and Kentucky is getting the best purses and best horses and Illinois’s wine products are top notch.
Comment by Gordon Willis Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 12:04 pm
Jason Plummer has always been a “rules are for thee but not for me” guy. Most of all he is a “mountain out of a molehill” guy too, stirring up outrage over things he knows little about. Like the legislative pay raises that he said we’re happening that never did.
Comment by Jason Bourne Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 12:05 pm
Sounds like Senator Plummer has a lot of extra time on his hands. Outlawing private citizens like Griffin from pouring millions of dollars into politicians campaign coffers would make a lot more sense.
Comment by The Dude Abides Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 12:26 pm
= said Andres Basso, general manager at Lynfred Winery in Roselle=
I am a huge fan of Lynfred winery, both the wines and the experience at the winery are amazing. Good luck with SB 2976. The Wine and Spirits distributors of Illinois (WSDI) are a mighty force in Springfield.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 12:29 pm
If all the extra money is private I do not see why a requirement would need to be put in place with how much extra is being paid.
My big question is that the people who work for the governor are in fact working for the state and if he gives them an order that is illegal under state law will they follow him or the state? On the other hand if he can fire them anyway I don’t see an additional conflict of interest.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 12:30 pm
The whole doubling people’s salary out of his own pocket thing does stink a bit. Even with the best of intentions it opens the door to shady things. At a minimum it should be reported and reviewed, if not outlawed
Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 12:52 pm
Just a question…Would it be acceptable for some corporate interest or someone other than the governor to pay additional salary (money) to a state employee with no disclosure?
Comment by Lawman Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 1:16 pm
I’ve never been a big fan of the Governor paying his staff from his own funds. If he believes that those individuals are worth that kind of money then he should put it in the budget for his office and pay them out of state funds.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 1:19 pm
Looking at it differently, I am wondering why, as a taxpayer, I am paying his employees anything.
For example, that report on the failure of Team Pritzker to return calls or do any kind of follow up regarding nursing home complaints was not released. Did the employees that are paid by JBP earn the money taxpayers are paying them by hiding that report? The problem at that Veterans Home is another example of not coming clean on a problem.
To me, this arrangement on pay doesn’t seem appropriate. Not sure it crosses “the line”, but I also wonder If Team Pritzker acknowledges their is a “line”.
Comment by Back to the Future Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 1:41 pm
Plummer’s legislation is a backdoor toward complaining how much the women working for Governor Pritzker make.
In their world view, no woman should be earning more than they do, unless its to provide entertainment for them.
The sexism within the anti-JB crowd is rivaled only by their fat jokes.
Comment by Thomas Paine Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 2:21 pm
I mean “I am going to pay people in part out of my own pocket” is a bit bit strange in at any level of government. The $10 question is would you still be comfortable with this if you don’t like the person doing the paying? Would you have been cool with Rauner doing this (perhaps he did for all can recall). How about Rod if he could have afforded it?
Could political appointees do this, for example lets say a rich guy was named head of the IDOT could he pay some folks out of his own pocket as an add-on to a state salary as well? How about give folks cash bonuses out of their own pocket? How about a not-for-profit organization, could a Governor establish an arms length foundation to pay some folks extra?
Do we just limit it to political appointees or do we allow this for Civil Servants as well?
Considering the state’s rich history this just seems to be a bad idea.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 2:50 pm
JB should support Plummer’s bill - there has been zero value realized out of the inflated salaries that I can see. If anything, just the opposite.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 3:25 pm
Many Division I college coaches receive significant compensation from private entities such as shoe/apparel manufacturers, media/entertainment companies and their university’s foundations so Plummer’s proposed legislation would seemingly impact those payments (and, yes, the amount of that compensation is likely a separate conversation for another day). The public university foundations are private, not-for-profit entities — recognized by the state’s Legislative Audit Commission Guidelines as University-Related Organizations — which are governed by independent boards rather than the university/state. This would likely also affect contract buyouts funded through the foundations for those same high-profile coaches when they aren’t winning enough games. Not making a case one way or the other here, just sharing an observation.
On the same topic, depending on how these payments are distributed/processed it’s possible the “private” payments are not calculated towards future pension costs for those employees. If the private dollars for these salary enhancements are replaced with public funds, the state — which means taxpayers — would be on the hook for these additional costs down the road.
Comment by Cubs Win Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 3:52 pm
OneMan, While I can understand what if it had been any of our colorful collection of governors would that be OK and I guess I would say given that we ask the employees to work often in Springfield and that we don’t pay them enough to compete with industry or other political entities, then yes, it’s fine with me if they get extra compensation. Though Cubs Wins points out an extra wrinkle and that is that the extra amount since it has not been approved legislatively, should not be pension eligible.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Feb 22, 22 @ 4:33 pm
==For example, that report on the failure of Team Pritzker to return calls or do any kind of follow up regarding nursing home complaints was not released. Did the employees that are paid by JBP earn the money taxpayers are paying them by hiding that report? ==
Can those reports and complaints be truly subject to attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality claims? Or could ACP be used as a CYA for refusing to release that report?
Comment by NonAFSCMEStateEmployeeFromChatham Wednesday, Feb 23, 22 @ 8:35 am