By DIANE ROSS

The ascension of Michael Madigan

Photos by Bill Foreman/Silver Images

WHEN THE Gentleman from Cook became the speaker of the House, reporters stopped calling him Mike and started calling him Michael Joseph Madigan. Up to then, he had been tagged with different nicknames to explain his rise in the ranks. It was a Republican, ironically his predecessor George H. Ryan, who first called Madigan the "Velvet Hammer." That was in the days when Madigan still used a style of not-so-friendly persuasion on members of his own party. Now, it's the Democrats themselves who're calling Madigan "Machi," short for Machiavelli. That came from reapportionment two years ago, when Madigan drew the map he says should guarantee the Democrats control of the General Assembly for the next decade. Those were the days when Madigan completed his rise through the ranks to become the No. 1 Democrat in the General Assembly. He became assistant minority leader in 1975, majority leader in 1977, minority leader in 1981 and speaker in 1983. He has served Chicago under three mayors (thus far).

Despite the dozen years he's represented Chicago in Springfield, reporters haven't had much more than the nicknames to explain how Madigan, at 40, became Illinois' 57th speaker of the House — the first from Chicago since John Touhy left the chair 16 years ago. Madigan is the fourth speaker to serve under the 1970 Constitution, following W. Robert Blair, William A. Redmond and Ryan. The statehouse press corps' files contain few stories on Madigan, and most were written after January 12, 1983, the day he assumed the chair by acclamation, an unusual bipartisan move led by Lee Daniels, the Republican leader whose party had just been reduced to a paltry 48-member minority under Madigan's map.

While Madigan has become more available to the media as he has climbed the leadership ladder, no one has quoted Madigan on Madigan at any length; he is simply a man of few words.

His background, however, has been well reported. Born on Chicago's southwest side, his father was a precinct committeeman, ward superintendent and friend of Mayor Daley. His education was traditional Irish-Catholic: St. Adrian's Grammar School, St. Ignatius High School, University of Notre Dame, Loyola University Law School. While at Loyola he met Daley and became friends with his eldest son. Madigan's political career started where Chicago political careers usually start. He became committeeman in the city's 13th Ward, elected delegate to the Illinois Constitutional Convention and slated for state representative from the 27th District — all within four months in 1969.

May 1983 | Illinois Issues | 6

Reporters never fail to describe Madigan as a family man (husband to the former Shirley Roumagoux and father to three, Lisa, Tiffany, Nicole), who is rarely seen at popular Springfield nightspots. What does he do in his off hours? He's a man who's rumored to swim, play golf and root for Cubs, Sox and the Fighting Irish, but who says only that he relaxes by visiting Chicago's galleries and museums.

Reporters have watched Madigan build consensus, solidify coalitions and, ultimately, achieve unity. Indeed, the profiles indicate that during Ryan's speakership, it often appeared that Madigan had more control over the House than Ryan.

Still, reporters are not quite sure who the man is. While Ryan was in the chair, they saw Madigan on the floor, who would lash out against Ryan with a vengeance, then — on a whim — deflate Ryan's ego by humorously lecturing him as "a father to a son." Regardless of the occasion, Madigan maintains control. He radiates command and presence; up close, his eye contact is almost hypnotic. Maintaining control lies at the heart of the Madigan mystique.

The most valuable lesson Madigan learned from Mayor Daley, it is said, was simple: Find out what people want and figure out how to give it to them. Madigan, who learned early that knowledge is power, prides himself on knowing what moves legislators as much as on knowing what moves legislation. And with power in his hands, he doesn't waste it. Example? Reapportionment.

The question now is: What will Madigan do with the speakership? Madigan provided some clues, when two months into his tenure, he talked to Illinois Issues on March 8.

ROSS: You seem to like the legislative arena. Former U.S. Sen. Adlai E. Stevenson III talked during the gubernatorial campaign last fall about how the executive branch is where the action is. What attracts you to the legislature?

MADIGAN: That's a good question. I would imagine the attraction of the legislature to me would be twofold: No. 1, under the Constitution, it occupies an equal position with the executive. No. 2, I enjoy developing and moving legislation, and part of that process is the disagreements with the Republican side of the aisle.

ROSS: You feel the legislature is a coequal branch?

MADIGAN: The legislature potentially is equal to the executive branch. Whether or not it is in reality, in large part, depends on the leadership of the legislature. So, if you have leaders in the legislature who appreciate the inherent strength of the legislature and know how to use their legislative skills to promote that strength, then we have created a strong legislature.

Let me offer some examples here. Former Assembly Speaker from California Jesse Unruh [now state treasurer of California] was here last week. He's a good example of a legislative leader who built the strength of a legislature vis-a-vis the executive. Former Sen. [W. Russell] Arrington in the Illinois Senate did much the same thing. Speaker Blair did some of that, although his work in that area is probably, in large part, forgotten because of some of the eccentric things he did.

ROSS: What's the largest gain the legislature has made in power since you've been a member?

MADIGAN: The biggest advance in authority by the legislature occurred when Blair was speaker because it was under Blair that each legislator was given an office in Springfield, was given a secretary in Springfield, which meant that, in practice, the job became more full time than it had been in the past. Once you move the institution so that the members, individually and collectively, view themselves as being either full time or a large part of the time, then you've increased the relative strength of the legislature as an institution relative to the executive.

ROSS: Using effective leadership, what power can the legislature gain?

MADIGAN: Under the Constitution, there's nothing more that you can do for the legislature today — under the Constitution.

There's one area of the Constitution which has been abused by the executive and which has greatly altered the relationship between the executive and the legislature but doesn't receive that much attention. That's the area of the amendatory veto.

All governors have gone beyond what was envisioned in terms of the amendatory veto by the Constitutional Convention. There were two bills in the last veto session where, in my judgment, Gov. Thompson totally abused the authority.

ROSS: The multiplier and the unitary? [In his amendatory veto of H.B. 2485, Thompson sought to neutralize the effect of the so-called "multiplier" used in calculating the assessment of local property taxes. In H.B. 2588, Thompson sought to have Illinois abstain from taxing conglomerates on income from foreign subsidiaries, but continue to do so on domestic subsidiaries. See "Legislative Action," February, p. 26.]

MADIGAN: Yes. And had I been the speaker at the time, and if I had received a motion that those amendments were out of order because they exceeded the governor's authority under the Constitution, I would have ruled on it. That's the one area where a speaker or a president of the Senate can increase the relative strength of the legislature.

ROSS: Why hasn't anyone ever done that before?

MADIGAN: Two reasons. Prior presiding officers didn't feel the urge or the ambition to take what would be viewed as an extreme action, to reassert the independence and the integrity of the legislature. No. 2 would be that it would be an extreme action to someone who would really want to do it.

It is my plan as the speaker, in due time, which means within the next few months, to inform the governor that all of his amendments to bills will be examined with extreme scrutiny and if there is a repetition of the multiplier

May 1983 | Illinois Issues | 7

bill or the unitary tax bill, I will rule that those amendments are not in order. Now, the response will be that use of the amendatory veto can be very practical at times because it permits for the final passage of legislation in a veto session without requiring the legislature to be actually in session for the number of days necessary to move a bill. My response will be that, if you weigh the destruction of the integrity and the independence of the legislature against the practicality considerations, my judgment would be to cause new legislation to be introduced, to schedule expeditious hearing in committee and on the floor and to move the legislation.

ROSS: The legislature last July gave the governor the power to transfer money into the general funds, and in December the power to cut final appropriations across the board. Was this an abdication of the legislature's inherent power to appropriate funds?

MADIGAN: No, because both bills dealt with short-term problems, short-term solutions. Both bills expired of their own nature. The transfer authority, in effect, has already expired because the governor has completed all of his borrowings. His budget authority bill is the same way. The governor can take no further action to date pursuant to the budget reduction.

Partial abdication of legislative authority doesn't concern me if it's short-term and if you can see that — in terms of the practical operation of goverment — it is in the best interest. I put great trust on the use of the words partial and short-term, so that in these two instances that we're talking about, we did not give up any permanent authority.

ROSS: What changes are you going to push for in the operation of the House?

MADIGAN: I think we've implemented most of the changes that we hope to implement. The big problem that I saw was just in the normal, day-to-day management of the House of Representatives. This would consist of the attitude of employees, which we have moved to correct. All employees under my jurisdiction have been told very explicitly that this is a job that they're expected to perform and that they're expected to earn the salaries that they are given.

I think that many times — not all the time, not the majority of the time — many times our employees didn't bring the proper business attitude to the job, and we have moved very assiduously to correct them. We have eliminated employees where we felt that the job could be performed by less. We have instructed our staff to work with the committee chairmen to provide for a very orderly scheduling of bills in committee.

In terms of how I conduct the business of the House when we are in floor sessions, I am very concerned about acceding to the rights of all of the members, guaranteeing that if someone wishes to speak to a bill they will be permitted to speak to a bill. At the same time, we think that they should all be well informed about precisely what is occurring. And, I try very hard to maintain the proper order and decorum on the House floor.

ROSS: In your inaugural address you spoke of "new coalitions." Would you define what you mean?

MADIGAN: Passing legislation, especially controversial legislation, requires the building up of coalitions of members of the legislature who will support the passage of the legislation. In the old House, we had minority party [Democrat] members from all over the state — including Chicago. So, when we would begin to formulate legislation in the House that would be beneficial, say, to northeastern Illinois, the first coalition built would consist of Chicago Democrats and Chicago Republicans. Chicago Republicans are no longer here. The downstate Democrats who sometimes would be sympathetic to the interests of Chicago or northeastern Illinois are no longer here. Now, we have a division between Democrats and Republicans, and the majority of the Democrats are from Chicago and the majority of the Republicans are from the collar counties. In the past, there has been a cleavage between Chicago and the surrounding suburban areas on such areas as transportation, water resources. The leadership on both sides of the aisle has been able to work through problems without basically resolving that cleavage.

The important point is that you have these two monoliths — Chicago and the suburban area — concerned with the really significant problems confronting the state. You can't skirt or evade them anymore; they have to be reconciled. That's very significant.

ROSS: Will there be anything of statewide concern that will test these "new coalitions?" Perhaps something like the governor's proposed increase in the state income tax?

May 1983 | Illinois Issues | 8

MADIGAN: The tax increase may, because the Republicans are already saying that the proceeds from the tax increase will mainly go to Chicago. I would say that's an educational problem for the governor and Republican leaders because I don't see that the majority of the money is going to Chicago. You can expect then, that if there's a tax increase, that the increase would be in appropriated areas such as education, public aid, mental health. And you have people from all over the state - upstate and downstate — who have relatives who are mentally afflicted, who have children that need public money for public education. You have people on public aid.

ROSS: You've used task forces to reach a consensus within the Democratic party. Couldn't the Republicans, under Minority Leader Lee Daniels, use the same strategy effectively?

MADIGAN: He could do the same thing. The establishment of a task force is part of coalition building. I just spoke to the need to build coalitions and pass legislation. When I establish a task force, I attempt to draw from all segments of the Democratic party — philosophical, demographic and sectional — so that when the task force is convened, I have a totally representative group.

In working with this smaller group which is representative of the entire Democratic party, I feel that if I get a consensus from that group then that consensus will hold throughout the bargaining. Anybody can do that. It requires a real good understanding and appreciation of precisely how your members think. Are they liberal? Are they conservative? Etc., etc. You have to understand and appreciate how they think. You have to be able to understand how to motivate legislators and move them in a certain direction. That's not so easy to do.

ROSS: Will it ever be possible to turn the House into another version of the Senate? Isn't there some kind of an inherent House of Commons versus the House of Lords relationship?

MADIGAN: Yes. And there should be. I would hope that the House would not become another Senate because, in my experience, many times the Senate as a whole is just too insulated and not as populist as it should be.

ROSS: You mean variety of viewpoints?

MADIGAN: I mean that in the past we always felt that the House was a reservoir of ideas; the Senate is just not as perceptive of new ideas as it should be. So, maybe in the end there should be some change in the House, but not a lot of change.

ROSS: You've criticized Gov. James R. Thompson for "dabbling" in government. What is your major criticism of the governor?

MADIGAN: That he doesn't work hard enough at the job.

ROSS: Including the fiscal area?

MADIGAN: Well, in the fiscal area, he has been very successful at telling one side of the story. During his recent campaign, he advertised himself as being responsible for the good fiscal condition of the state. Subsequent events tend to dispute what he said. Plus, if you look upon the poor fiscal condition of the state today, you understand two things. They shed a different light on his pronouncements. No. 1, we would be fiscally solvent today if we had not enacted sales tax relief on food and drugs, manufacturing equipment and farm implement machinery and equipment. That's point No. 1. Point No. 2: During his recent budget message, the governor claimed credit for those three tax relief items. The facts are that he opposed all of those, if not all the way, at least initially.

ROSS: Are you suggesting that had you been governor, you would have had the foresight not to grant any tax relief?

MADIGAN: If I had been governor, I would like to think that I would have been working closely with the legislature, and the question of granting sales tax relief on manufacturing equipment and farm implement machinery and equipment would have been resolved in a committee of the House or the Senate, where there could have been a more informed, intelligent judgment rendered, rather than on the floor of the House or the floor of the Senate or in the veto session.

The point is that Thompson does not spend a great deal of time working with the legislature. He doesn't have people on his staff who spend a great deal of time working with the legislature. Consequently, in many areas Thompson has not been able to get on top of issues early so that they have the action solved early. What happens is that they get bigger and bigger problems, and the solutions he offers are not as good.

ROSS: The governor pointed out that his fiscal 1984 budget does not assume the legislature will pass any kind of tax increase. But he failed to point out that his budget does assume the legislature will make the kind of substantive changes in the law required by the kind of cuts he proposes. Do you find that a risky assumption?

MADIGAN: You see, his budget — his recent budget [March 2] — is a testament to his method of operating the government. It's further evidence of what I was just speaking to. Other governors would have presented a budget that included the tax increase.

ROSS: At the same time?

MADIGAN: At the same time. And the budget would then represent a commitment on the part of the governor to the tax increase proposal. Thompson does not choose to move in a bold manner. He chooses to simply lay out options, one by one, and he doesn't really step forward and say, "I strongly support Option A; it's the only option that's going to work." If you were to examine the methods used by Gov. [Richard B.] Ogilvie when he was governor, you would see a great contrast between Ogilvie and Thompson.

ROSS: How much leverage does the legislature have in reference to the fiscal 1984 budget?

MADIGAN: The budget document? We have a great deal of leverage, a great deal. We have the option of accepting this budget as is. We can amend his budget and keep the same bottom line. Or, we could send him a budget which provides for a level of appropriation beyond what he has recommended. That then takes us to the question of the amendatory veto and the reduction veto. I don't know if you can break these things down to precisely what he recommended in the first place.

ROSS: Are we entering a new era in the budget process? The legislature already has a revenue-forecasting arm, the Economic and Fiscal Commission. Would the legislature want to create a counterpart to the Congressional Budget Office?

May 1983 | Illinois Issues | 9

MADIGAN: I don't think so. I've thought of that, but I don't think the Illinois legislature has reached the point where it will advance its own budget. And I don't think that it would be in the best interest of the people of the state for the legislature to advance its own budget. I think that today's budgetary process — where the governor's office and the Bureau of the Budget are the focus for discussion — serves the best interest of the people.

ROSS: Inflation gave government what amounted to a windfall profit in tax revenue in the late 1970s. Now some people say economic recovery in the 1980s is a myth. Do you subscribe to the theory that even if Illinois raises the income tax, the state will never have the discretionary, or so-called "new" money it used to have?

MADIGAN: You're correct when you say that the Reagan economic program has provided that there will be little corporate income tax paid to the federal government and therefore to the state governments as we piggyback on the federal return. At the same time, if there were a renewed economy in Illinois, there would be many individual taxpayers who would once again be earning money and paying taxes on the money that they earned. . . .

We can look forward to some kind of recovery; the recovery may not be as great as it once was. Plus, in Illinois, you have some very inherent economic problems. Our basic industries are in very poor condition, and there's a possibility that those basic industries — steel and automobiles — will never recover. The popular conversation today is that they will never recover. I'm not totally convinced of that.

There is the possibility that Illinois and other midwestern states will be operating for many years in a condition where their basic industries have never fully recovered. At the same time, there will be a large number of people on unemployment, on welfare. Other businesses are fleeing the region because of the benefits in the South and the West. And, compounded, we may be moving into a period when this entire region just languishes behind the rest of the country.

If you go to the West, you'll see that everybody — business and consumer — receives low-cost power because in the 1930s the federal government went out to the rivers of the West and built gigantic dams which now provide low-cost hydroelectric power. That region was in a depressed state in those years because they didn't have power. Today they have the power because of the action of the federal government. The government moved boldly to solve their problem. Well, they should move boldly to solve the problems in the Midwest now.

If the federal government years ago could build water projects in the West, if they can deliberately build defense plants in the South and the Southwest because those regions were depressed, well, surely there's something they could do today in this depressed region.

ROSS: How far can state government go in improving the economy of Illinois?

MADIGAN: There's a certain amount that can be done at the state level.

We're working on legislation now that we hope will help the condition of the Illinois economy. At the time of the governor's inaugural address, he stated that he would appear before the legislature at the time of the State of the State address with a bold new agenda for Illinois, and, if all of those items were enacted, we could look forward to years of prosperity. Apparently, his bold new agenda for Illinois is the increase in the income tax; at least, that's the only bold item I've seen offered.

ROSS: When you speak of new economic legislation, are you referring to the economic development plan Sen. Stevenson espoused during the gubernatorial campaign last fall?

MADIGAN: Some of them, elements of Stevenson's plan, but not solely Stevenson's plan.

ROSS: Are you ready to describe any details?

MADIGAN: No, because we're in the formative stages. It's a complex area; it's new for many of us. And we just don't feel comfortable and confident yet.

ROSS: What about the Madigan "mystique?" You've been involved in state government for more than a decade, yet many reporters feel they don't know the real you. They write that you are cold on some occasions, charming on others, but they're not sure which is the real Madigan, whether both are fabrications. Have you kept your true personality a secret from the media?

MADIGAN: No. All I've ever done is been myself. I will say, in defense of myself or in advancement of myself, I do think that I have adjusted to changing political conditions in Illinois. I came to the legislature when Ogilvie was governor and Daley was mayor. If you reflect back to 1969 and 1970, you will remember that politics in Illinois in those days was pretty well structured along party lines. That's when I started, and I advanced in those years. I lived through those Walker years, and I've lived through the Thompson/Bilandic years and the Thompson/Byrne years, and here I am.

Maybe I'm charming when charm is called for and maybe I'm rather cold when I'm telling some legislator who has fed at my trough for a long time that it's now his turn to bite the bullet.

May 1983 | Illinois Issues | 10

ROSS: When you first came down here, did you think Mayor Daley wanted you sent here for training for some particular job?

MADIGAN: No. I didn't feel that I was being trained for anything. I chose to come to Springfield. There was an opportunity for a Democrat to be slated for a state representative. I happened to be a ward committeeman at the time. The opportunity was available to me so I ran for the legislature. After I became a member of the legislature, I became involved in the process and in due time I sought to become a member of the leadership. And I sought his help in becoming a member of the leadership. But I never felt that I was under his personal tutelage.

ROSS: Clearly part of your rise through the ranks is attributable to what seems to be vacuums of power in the Democratic party. Why haven't you had more competition for leadership?

MADIGAN: I suppose that may depend on your assessment of competition. Assumption of leadership more often than not is the willingness of certain people to become assertive and to move into vacuums. The question of reapportionment is a good example. I could have chosen to avoid reapportionment. I didn't. I chose to become involved, to work assiduously at reapportionment, and politically it became an asset for me.

ROSS: Which speakers of the House have you admired most and least?

MADIGAN: That's really a question I shouldn't answer.

ROSS: What have you brought to the speakership, perhaps, that no one else has? What do you provide for the Democrats that no one else has?

MADIGAN: Rather than to say that I can bring something that no one else did, why don't I just say that I can bring to the speakership a political and governmental experience that started at the very lowest levels and which culminated in my ascension to the speakership through a series of small steps. I did not catapult to this job. I came here as a lowly member and, step by step, I occupied a variety of positions. I was assistant majority leader, majority leader, minority leader, now I'm the speaker. So, I bring to the job good experience in the legislature. I can see that myself now, in terms of anticipating the management problems we may have in the House and the political problems we may have in the House.

But, at the same time, I bring a job experience and a political experience from Chicago that I think is well grounded. I didn't become a ward committeeman in Chicago because Mayor Daley asked me to. I went out and convinced the majority of the precinct captains in my ward that I should be the ward committeeman. Our prior committeeman died; we had an election among the precinct captains to select a successor. There were 89 precinct captains; I convinced 49 to vote for me and 35 voted against me. That's how I became a ward committeeman. I became a ConCon delegate — which was my first elected office — because I went out and campaigned to win the election. In those days, it was a Republican district. In the prior two elections, they had sent Republicans. There was a Republican state senator and two Republican representatives, and the alderman of the ward was Republican. So it was a Republican area. I was elected to ConCon because I went out and aggressively campaigned.

ROSS: How has your philosophy of government changed during your years in Springfield?

MADIGAN: I think that over the years I have really become much more sensitive to human needs and become more sensitive to the need for the government to respond to those needs.

ROSS: Even before you became speaker, people were talking about you as the rising star of the Democratic party in Illinois, as possibly the most powerful Democrat outside City Hall. Has this created any problems in your relationship with Senate President Philip J. Rock, who is, of course, the chairman of the state Democratic party?

MADIGAN: I don't think that any of my successes create any problems with Sen. Rock. He and I have had differences; they have been reported by a variety of people. Those differences generally emanate out of contrasting styles, and contrasting views of political advantage and political decision-making. My position has been that Sen. Rock is an intelligent and strong-willed person. God bless him. So am I. Out of the interaction of those two personalities there will necessarily be some differences. And there have been differences, but I think it's fair to say, more often than not, we have resolved those differences for the betterment of the party and for the betterment of the people of this state.

ROSS: Candidates for mayor of Chicago — Harold Washington and Bernard Epton — have considerable experience as legislators in Springfield. What effect will this background have on relations between Springfield and Chicago considering the fact that they know how the game goes on down here?

MADIGAN: Correct, correct. With either there will be great respect emanating from the mayor's office relative to the legislature.

ROSS: You mean greater than the last four years?

MADIGAN: Yes. Sure. Each will thoroughly understand, No. 1, the significance of the legislature in terms of what the legislature could do or not do for the city of Chicago. And secondly, because of their prior experience, there will be a great desire to work closely with the legislature. After that, why you get different questions and different answers.

ROSS: If you could make just one statement to the readers of our magazine, what would you, as speaker of the House, say?

MADIGAN: The one message that I would like to deliver personally, my own personal message, would be that at the end of my term as speaker I hope that the people of Illinois will feel that under my leadership, the House of Representatives moved intelligently and deliberately to identify problems and work toward solutions to those problems.□

May 1983 | Illinois Issues | 11