By GARY DELSOHN A graduate student in the Public Affairs Reporting Program at Sangamon State University, Delsohn edited a weekly newspaper in Colorado, the Del None Prospector, after graduating from Southern Illinois University with a bachelor's degree in journalism.

Speaker of the House

Bill Redmond


Bill Redmond

ADMITTING that becoming speaker of the House was never one of his burning desires, William A. Redmond was nonetheless first elected to that position as a compromise candidate on the 93rd ballot in 1975. After serving 17 unassuming years in the Illinois House, the 67-year-old Bensenville Democrat was thrust into leadership primarily because he was one of the few experienced Democrats acceptable to Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and Gov. Daniel Walker. Never a sponsor of controversial legislation, Redmond was, as even his admirers confess, a dedicated "back bencher, "a man content with faithfully representing his DuPage County constituents for the last 19 years.

Actively campaigning for the speakership in 1977, Redmond was elected on the first ballot, surprising many observers who predicted he would have an uphill struggle. His even- tempered manner of running the House had endeared him even to his opponents, and there was virtually no concerted opposition to his candidacy this time around.

Redmond took 90 minutes at the end of a busy day, January 25, for this interview in his House office.

Q: How do you view your role as speaker of the House?

A: Primarily as the presiding officer. The speaker is the speaker for both the Republicans and the Democrats. Of course, when you have a governor of the opposite persuasion it does take on some partisanship, but serving as the presiding officer is the main thing.

Q: How do you respond to criticism that you were not forceful enough as speaker in your first term?

A: In the first place, during my first term we had a badly divided Democratic party. We had a governor, who didn't get along very well with the mayor of Chicago. I've said before and I'll say again, there weren't words persuasive enough to convince either Gov. Walker or Mayor Daley that either one of them should change. The only thing I can point out is that I'm Democratic chair- man of the second largest county in Illinois — DuPage — with the second largest Democratic vote in the state. I must have done something right, I must have some political prowess or I wouldn't hold that position.

Q: What can we expect from you as speaker this term? Will you continue to emphasize the themes of "openness and accountability" as you did last time?

A: Government belongs to the people. Everything I can do to make the process more accessible, I'll do. My relations with the press and public have always been open and reasonably good. I don't intend to sponsor any controversial legislation. My predecessor — W. Robert Blair [R., Park Forest, speaker from 1971-1975] — got into trouble when he sponsored legislation on the Regional Transportation Authority. It was the focal point of a lot of quarreling and snarling, and a lot of it had to do with the bill itself, rather than him. But a lot of that animosity was transferred to the speaker.

Q: What type of relationship do you expect House Democrats to have with Gov. Thompson, and how will it differ with the relationship you had under Gov. Walker?

A: Well, Gov. Thompson has indicated that he wants to work with the legislature. Some of Gov. Walker's advisors gave him bad advice. They told him the legislature was his adversary. Gov. Thompson has said some things along the same lines, but he would make a sad mistake if he thought we were his adversary. He's indicated a willingness to go along. He's got his role and we have ours, but that doesn't mean you have to be ugly about it.

Q: Why did you win the speaker's race so easily the second time?

A: I went all over the state. I went to Vandalia, Collinsville, Albion and anyplace else anyone asked me. Speaker doesn't mean much, maybe, in Chicago, but it's considered a big job downstate. I went to places where they had never seen a speaker before. And I tried to do anything I could for the members. I spoke out against the phony Political Honesty Initiative; I defended members' rights for a pay raise; I've tried to be fair and open; and this time I had the independents. I worked hard, and also, there really was no one else to rally around.

Q: How will your job be different during this session?

A: It's a lot easier. My letters advising members of their committee assignments went out January 25 this year. Two years ago they went out February 14. We're way ahead of ourselves compared to two years ago. Last time, it was a bitter pill to know that 17 Democrats didn't vote for me. I had a good legislative record; I paid my dues to the party, I carried my oats to the donkey. But, there's no resentment now. Most of those fellows nominated or seconded me this time. It was very gratifying to get elected on the first ballot this time.

Q: Gov. Walker is accused of fostering a great deal of divisiveness within the Democratic party in Illinois. With him gone, at least for the time being, can we

Continued at bottom of page 10.

April 1977/ Illinois Issues/9


Redmond
Continued from page 9.

expect a unified Democratic party in the House this session?

A: Things look awfully good. If you look at the makeup of the committees you'll see there are chairmanships down south, there are chairmanships in the center of the state and there are chair- manships in Chicago and everywhere else. I don't have any feuds that I know of. But there are problems. One of the worst things that happens is this state revenue-sharing. That's what gets section going against section. They fight for the school aid, they all fight for this thing and that thing. If there was any possible way that local governments could raise their own money, a lot of these fights would end.

Q: The death of Mayor Daley has left a gap at the top of your party. What do you think the future holds for the Democratic party in Illinois?

A: Mayor Daley certainly has to be the most important figure in the Democratic party in Illinois in the last 50 years, but you'd have to be blind not to realize people tried to make a villain out of him. I don't think it was justified in most cases. People build a devil and then whip the devil. That's what they did with the mayor. At one time our party had great support all over the state. Somehow, we don't have that support anymore. Oh, we have Alan Dixon; Paul Simon was strong — but he's in Congress now. What I see is a broadening of the base of the party. I think George Dunne — chairman of the Cook County Democratic Committee — as president of the County Board, has a different constituency than Mayor Daley had. Dunne worked with suburban people and recognizes the needs of suburbia more than the mayor did. Mayor Daley was such a Chicagoan that he thought what was good for Chicago was good for the world. We've seen that the city of Chicago alone can no longer win statewide elections. That will be the biggest single political change after the death of Mayor Daley.

Q: Did you talk to Mayor Daley about your candidacy for speaker this time?

A: Yes, he said "good luck." There was no reason why he wouldn't have supported me. He only asked me for one thing and that was the vote on the schools [to override Walker's veto of increased school aid — the measure failed by one vote]. I couldn't go along with it and he reminded me that he only asked for that one thing. I told him the election showed Chicago's interests were not always shared statewide, and I think he understood why I couldn't vote for something that would hurt my district. He knew I wouldn't hurt him, and he had no right to ask for something that would hurt me in my own district. I never knew the mayor that well; no one outside the city ever did. His was a small circle, mainly from the 11th Ward. But we had a lot of mutual friends. I always thought he ultimately would have supported me. But frankly, I wanted downstate Democratic and independent support first. If I had the mayor of Chicago first, I never would have made it.

Q: Some of your critics say that you avoided the heavy-handed political maneuvering that goes with the job of speaker by handing the gavel to former Majority Leader Gerald W. Shea [D., Riverside]. How do you respond to that?

A: What Gerry Shea did, for the most part, was represent the interests of the mayor of Chicago and that was not my role, under any circumstances. I'm very much indebted to Gerry for the assistance he gave me the last time. I didn't know too much about financing and running the staff, which is a big part of this thing.

Gerry would have loved to have been speaker. I guess just about anyone would have, although it was never one of my burning ambitions. And quite frankly, Gerry liked to preside. What

10/ April 1977/ Illinois Issues


was I going to do, trip him when he was on his way up there? He handled the job well; nobody complained he was unfair. The real operation is not just out there on the podium. In the end, I made the decisions. If there was ever a disagreement, my decision stood.

Q: What type of session do you expect the 80th General Assembly to be, and what are its priorities?

A: It looks to me like a far more tranquil session, at least in the House. This is my 19th year and I don't remember a time when there was less rankling. Obviously, we need enough money to keep the whole show running. We have to do something about the Board of Elections [see Board of Elections articles in March magazine]. We have to at least start thinking seriously about replacing the personal property tax on corporations, as the Constitution mandates. There's always talk about public aid fraud, maybe we'll look into that. There are other things. Last session the House initiated medical malpractice legislation that looks like it might have done a good Job. I'm contemplating doing the same thing with products liability this year.

Q: Can we avoid a tax increase in the next two years?

A: It will be difficult. If there is a hike, my prediction is it will come in the income tax. Part of our problem is that

"Part of our problem is that when we got the income tax we weren't careful about how we spent the money. We spent it too quickly'

when we got the income tax we weren't careful about how we spent the money. We spent it too quickly. We should have tried for school funding in eight years, instead of four. We made a mistake selling too many bonds.

Q: What are some other major issues confronting the 80th General Assembly?

A: Death penalty and ERA, I suppose. There will be some reinstatement of capital punishment, and ERA will probably make it. It was floundering, but passage in Indiana will help [see March magazine for article on ERA.] Collective bargaining is another important question. There are two facets to that. One is working conditions, the other is cost. Nobody quarrels that there should be some procedure to make sure people get fair treatment. But cost is another thing. This is especially true for local governments, which are hemmed in by certain rates and ceilings which they cannot go beyond unless the legislature gives them authority. If you get into a situation where more money is requested than is being raised, you may have to lay some people off. That's the part of collective bargaining that's very difficult.

Q: What would you like to be your main accomplishments this term?

A: Be a good speaker. I have to laugh at people who say I'm weak. Chicago magazine said 1 was a "tower of putty." I'm not strong, not this, not that. Somewhere along the line I must have done something right. I was president of my class at Marquette University, I've been elected to the House 10 times, speaker twice. Somewhere I did something right. I come from a family of gentle people. I never heard an angry voice in my house. I was a pretty fair athlete; I wrestled Joe McArthy, you know. I never had a fight in my life. I figured, what the hell, if he can beat me it hurts, if I can beat him, so what? But I was never afraid to speak up. Two years ago, in the speakership election; I thought what they were doing was wrong. From a political point of view I didn't think Clyde Choate [former representative (D., Anna), candidate for speaker of 79th General Assembly] was

April 1977/ Illinois Issues/11


Redmond

'We're sliding in backwards to committee bills'

good for the party and the political decisions that had to be made.

Q: Are the days of the demagogic speaker over?

A: I think so.

Q: Is that good or bad?

A: I think you can go too far. I think the Senate has gone too far. At first, I could understand the rebellion of the so- called "Crazy Eight" in the Senate [see January 1976 magazine]. They didn't have participatory politics to the degree we have it over here. But if you fragment the party so that you no longer have party positions, it's going to be harmful. Our situation is different. I don't think the speaker will be weak after I'm gone.

Q: Will speakers in the future best serve their party and office by following your low-keyed approach?

A: I think so. I have nothing to hide. I have no great plans for anything. I have no great villainy. I'm not going to remake the world. I've enjoyed it, though. I enjoy the reputation I have at home. I prize my good name and wouldn't do anything to make my family ashamed of me. I've enjoyed being in the legislature. Where else could an immigrant's son have been able to meet the kinds of people I've associated with? Sen. Paul Douglas was a friend of mine. Jimmy Carter. Ted Kennedy. John Kennedy. Mayor Daley. George Dunne. Dan Walker. I know Gov. Thompson. Gov. Kerner was my classmate. Gov. Shapiro was a friend. Where the hell else could I meet these people?

Q: What can be done to improve the image of our elected officials?

A: Well, I'm doing what I can to improve it. We have transcripts of all the floor debates which we are sending to all the library systems. I want to make things accessible and clear. Things happen in government and you sometimes can't tell how the hell they happen. Well, we can take all the bills introduced and put them on microfilm and send that all over the state. Then, if people want to see what's going on, they don't have to come all the way down here to check. I've known a lot of government people and they are pretty good, in the main. It's our responsibility to conduct ourselves so people can have confidence in government, sure, but it's also the responsibility of the press not to go off on the stuff [Watergate] to detract, to undermine, to destroy the confidence of people in government.

Q: What about abolition of the personal property tax for corporations?

A: I don't see anything happening with it this session. What do they do if you don't replace it? They don't put you in the gas chamber. I would anticipate a revenue subcommittee of the House will study it.

Q: One of your goals has been a reform of the legislative calendar in an effort to avoid the mad rush at the end of each session. Will we see any change this year?

A: Well, we've had all sorts of proposals, some limiting bills per legislator to about 10 or 20.1 think that's a hard thing to do. In Congress there isn't any regular sponsorhip, for the most part. They submit what they want to and it goes to the Rules Committee and finally, it's the Rules Committee that decides what gets to the floor. Iowa I believe, has committee bills exclusively. I don't think they have individual sponsorship. It looks to me like we're sliding in backwards to committee bills rather than individual sponsorship. If all those proposals on one subject were put together in committee, they would all come out of committee as one bill. We're tending that way. Whether it will be accomplished this session or in a couple of sessions, I don't know. ž

12 / April 1977/ Illinois Issues


Home |Back to Periodicals Available| |Table of Contents| |Back to Illinois Issues 1977|