Legislative pay raise - image vs. substance

The big flap over the legislature's pay raise vote didn't accomplish very much, despite all the hoopla. When it was all over, the lawmakers agreed to grab the money more slowly. Not only did they not apologize for the slick way they passed the pay raise in the first place, but some even thumbed their noses at their constituents as they ungraciously decided to "phase in" the hikes.

But if nothing much resulted from the public outcry, it at least served to accentuate some truths about Illinois government. Not the least of which is that substance doesn't count for much any more in the political process; image joes.

Start from the top. You can make a darn good case that legislators and some if the other top state officials deserved praises they got — and maybe more. The General Assembly, especially, works a lot harder than most people realize, thanks to the demands of the 1970 Constitution and its continuous Sessions.

But the legislators and Gov. James R. Thompson never really got a chance to lake that case because they immediatly were branded with the image of needy grabbers. Within hours after the ises were passed, vetoed and then passed over the veto, people all over the state were talking about "those crooks in Springfield, grabbing more money for themselves."

Most of the legislators never realized that this kind of feeling was so wide-spread and almost instinctive among voters. Some legislators wrongly blaimed the news media for stirring up that sentiment. The fact is, the "legislators and Thompson projected such an overwhelmingly negative image that the substance of their case couldn't be considered. If the legislature never realized it had created an image problem for itself, Thompson did. Early on, the governor steadfastly defended his quick, calculated veto, saying the legislature was entitled to have the last word, no matter what. Besides, he said, he had to live with the House and Senate for another session and didn't want to incur their wrath by using a "pocket veto." So why did he change his mind? Simple — he was being tarred with the same image brush as the lawmakers. Finally, stinging under criticism which obviously was far more intense then he expected, Thompson subordinated governmental considerations to consideration of image. He called a special session to consider the "rollbacks" and took his lumps from legislators who felt he had doublecrossed them.

Another victory for image over substance. Then came the special session itself. By that time, the sharper legislators knew what was going on, namely, that the question facing them was how to present an image of contrition while sacrificing as little money as possible. Many legislators (enough tofashion what they called a compromise) went about that task in a relatively workmanlike fashion. Others, like Sen. Charles Chew (D., Chicago), had other ideas about their image.

Talking about a proposal to phase in the raises over three years, Chew told a chuckling Senate, "If you take $4,000 now, you're gonna catch holy hell. Then when you phase in the $2,000 more in 1979, you're gonna catch holy hell again. And when you phase in the last $2,000, you're gonna catch holy hell again.

"Let's take the 28 [thousand dollars] now and only catch holy hell one time!" Which leads to the next question: What effect did all this have on a voting public already apathetic, unhappy with their politicians and angry about increasing inflation? All the teabags sent to the Executive Mansion, all the letters to the editor, all the phone calls and all the protests at the Capitol produced little enough result. Will the voters remember in 1980 who voted for the pay raises and will that memory carry enough weight to decide a vote? Will enough people stay upset enough to climb on the bandwagon to reduce the size of the legislature? Or will the relatively small impact of such a widespread protest simply produce more widespread apathy?

Because the legislature can't turn around and give everyone else what they want (or as much as they want), it will be hard to change its image. On other subjects: What in the world is bubbling in Sen. Adlai E. Stevenson's mind? First he blasted President Carter as "embarrassing" to the Democratic party, then he said he would like to see a third party formed, then he said he might run as that party's presidential candidate, then he backed off from the whole thing.

Watch closely what the Democrats are doing in the House. With a one-vote margin of control, they're packing the committees with members of their party and trying to change the rules to make it almost impossible to amend a bill once it gets to the floor.

The net impact of those changes will be to give the Democratic party leadership more effective control over legislation than it would otherwise enjoy. But it might also have the salutory side effect of forcing serious debate and consideration of new legislation in committees — something the legislature has too often failed to do.

If that happens, a political power play might turn into a good government reform. Wouldn't that be a pleasant about-face for the General Assembly?

March 1979/Illinois Issues/33