Legislative Action

By DIANE ROSS

First fruits of the session

LEGISLATORS always say the even years, when money matters have priority, are different: fewer bills, shorter calendars, tighter deadlines. Their constituents probably never notice. Voters seem to hold legislators more accountable for the laws they make than the funds they appropriate. It's the so-called "substantive" bills lawmakers pass, or refuse to pass, that constituents remember Election Day. All that could change this year.

The fight over appropriations was bad enough last spring; both parties knew the recession would hit state government before the summer was over. But it's worse this year. The budget must be balanced if the state is to remain solvent. The pressure to cut services rather than raise taxes is never greater than in an election year. The recession has reduced the fight over appropriations to questions of lowering benefits, closing institutions, laying off workers.

Will the voters cast their ballots on the basis of whether the state's mental health centers in Dixon, Champaign and Harrisburg are open or closed on November 2? How accountable will constituents hold legislators on money matters this year? Which party will get the credit or the blame? It's too early to tell.

The story in 1982 — the General Assembly's action on major substantive matters — is unfolding much like that in 1981: the bills lawmakers kill, or at least mortally wound, are indicating priorities as much or more than the ones they pass. At least that seemed to be the case by June 1, when bills which had passed their house of origin had moved across the rotunda to the other chamber. However, there's always a "vehicle" — the device to revive the mortally wounded issue as an amendment to another bill. Remember last year when the General Assembly rubber-stamped the $500 million business/labor reform of state unemployment insurance (UI) laws on June 29? The vehicle was S.B. 1081, a UI bill that was ready for a ride. By June this year, fiscal 1982 dilemmas that threatened the solvency of the state had forced the General Assembly to send two bills to Gov. James R. Thompson. In both cases the legislation was enacted as amendments to vehicles.

How will the 1982 story finally compare with the 1981 story? Here's how it looked by June 1, after the House, at least, had passed the deadline for action on its own substantive bills.

School aid payments

By consensus of both sides of the aisle, the single most significant piece of legislation the House had passed by June 1 was a measure that delayed the second of two payments of state aid to schools until the start of the new fiscal year. The delay had been the governor's No. 1 legislative priority for months; Thompson was talking $126 million in cash flow at the end of the current (1982) fiscal year — literally the difference between solvency and insolvency — and legislators knew it. They found a vehicle, H.B. 497, held over in the Senate from last year; the amendment-approving the delay was sponsored by Sen. John Maitland (R., Bloomington). The Senate passed the amendment 31-13 May 20; the House concurred with the Senate amendment 113-54 May 21.

To further compound the General Assembly's workload in May — legislators were forced to deal with a court order on welfare which threatened to drain $20 million from the general funds during the remaining weeks of fiscal 1982.

Like the delay in state aid to schools, there was little question that the General Assembly would fail to respond to the court order with the necessary legislation. Lawmakers found a vehicle, H.B. 2211 (actually a supplemental fiscal 1982 appropriations bill already passed in the House and sent to the Senate) and quickly wrote the amendment. But welfare wasn't the only amendment that would ride this vehicle.

The court order had caught Thompson off guard. He knew the Democrats would eventually support the welfare amendment since most of the General Assistance clients who stood to lose lived in Chicago. But the governor wanted something else — another 240 auditors at the Department of Revenue to crack down on tax cheaters and bring in a little more revenue before the end of fiscal 1982. Now Thompson knew the Democrats would accuse him of putting the auditors on the payroll in a shameless display of election-year patronage. What better way to overcome that obstacle than to tie the revenue amendment to the welfare amendment on the same vehicle bill?

Senate President Philip Rock pushed both amendments through the Democratic Senate on a 44-5 vote May 13. House Minority Leader Michael Madigan, however, obstinately blocked passage of the revenue amendment in the House. The bill went to conference committee. After a week of intense wrangling, Madigan finally compromised. On May 14, the Senate adopted the conference committee report 51-0 and the House followed suit 149-18.

The court got its welfare amendment and Thompson got his revenue amendment — but Madigan saw to it that Thompson's extra auditors could not go on the payroll until the new fiscal year started.

Fahner's grand jury

The political surprise in the House came shortly before it adjourned May 21, when the majority Republicans refused to support statewide grand juries, the key plank in the platform of their party's candidate, Attorney General Tyrone Fahner. It was Fahner's second attempt to pass the bill in as many years, but he was so short of vital Republican votes that Speaker George Ryan wouldn't call it for a final vote. H.D. 2635, the state grand juries bill, sponsored by Majority

34 | July 1982 | Illinois Issues

Fahner apparently failed this year because he played such dirty political tricks on downstate Democrats that even Republicans were offended. The attorney general took out newspaper ads that made downstate Democrats who opposed statewide grand juries appear to be equally opposed to other anti-crime bills.

Those other two anti-crime bills mentioned in the Fahner ads were passed unanimously by almost a full House on May 20: the measure which bans look-alike drugs, H.B. 2079, sponsored by Rep. Frank Watson (R., Greenville), passed 170-0; and the bill which authorizes the confiscation of the assets of convicted drug dealers, H.B. 2450, sponsored by Rep. Lee Daniels (R., Elmhurst), passed 171-0. So much for the emergency fiscal measures and the single political surprise. Here's some of the other substantive issues the House dealt with in May.

As far as elementary education is concerned, the House, via its School Problems Commission, tinkered with the formula for apportioning state aid to schools. Among this year's major adjustments: increases in the operating tax rates used to compute state aid and permission to weight seventh and eighth grade students when computing average daily attendance. But any formula is only as good as the appropriation behind it. Regardless of how much the legislature appropriates and the governor approves, results of this year's House adjustments to the formula were slight, but when the bill left the House, downstate districts were ahead of Chicago. (H.B. 2384, sponsored by Rep. Gene Hoffman, R., Elmhurst, passed the House 122-46 May 20.)

Among business and labor measures, the Democrats managed to kill the major worker's compensation bill in the House. Basically, it was a pro-business bill, considered another Republican attempt to ban benefits for pre-existing injuries. (H.B. 2274, sponsored by Rep. Fred Tuerk, R., Peoria; the House failed to pass 74-91 May 20.)

Collective bargaining

In a replay of last year's collective bargaining action, the Democrats somehow managed to get enough Republican votes to pass a bill for public education — and they went on to pass a similar bill for state workers in the executive branch. Although the General Assembly legalized collective bargaining for elementary and secondary teachers last year, this year the House bill includes community college and university faculty. Cases challenging the law from last year are still in court, and legislators remain as divided on the intent of the bill passed last year as they are on this year's House bill. Democrats, and apparently the Republicans who voted with them, contend neither bill mandates binding arbitration. The Republicans who fought both bills maintain they do. (H.B. 1345, sponsored by Rep. James McPike, D., Alton; the House passed 106-64 April 20.)

Some observers still can't figure out how the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) got the executive branch collective bargaining bill through the House this year. State workers under the jurisdiction of the governor have enjoyed collective bargaining since 1973 when Gov. Dan Walker authorized such salary negotiations via executive order. Thompson has continued the collective bargaining practice, but he has suggested that the current contract with AFSCME calls for more in salaries than he believes the state can afford in fiscal 1983. (H.B. 1873, sponsored by Rep. Peg Breslin, D., Ottawa; House passed 103-62 April 21.)

The House had taken care of business by May 21, but then went on to astound everyone by adjourning until June 8, when ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment was expected to be called for a vote. At present time, June 1, the Senate had reconvened for the last month of the session. Which bills will finally wind up on the governor's desk? At the Statehouse, anything can happen in June.

July 1982 | Illinois Issues | 35