With a late start, passing appropriations is a race toward June 30 deadline

Failure of a second conference report is said to be fatal, yet S.B. 1261 survived to undergo a veto (nonfatal)

How it was "Legislators are oriented to one class of objects only: appropriation bills. It is true, a/course, that legislators have access to l he budget book, annual reports of the Finance Department, and a variety of other documents of potential relevance, m least to the content of appropriation bills. Apart from a very few exceptions, however, legislators make no attempt to .familiarize themselves with these additional documents." Thomas J. Anton, The Politics of State Expenditure in Illinois (1966), page 186 (by permission of University of Illinois Press, Urbana).

MAKING appropriations is an essential part of the legislative process. The state could conceivably function without new laws (some say this would be a good thing), but new appropriations each year are necessary if the state and state-aided local governments are to have funds to continue to operate.

The appropriation cycle hinges on three dates: the first Wednesday in March (in 1974, March 6) when the governor submits his budget to the legislature for the next fiscal year; June 30 when old appropriations expire; and July 1 when the new fiscal year begins and new appropriations should become effective. June 30 is also the last day on which bills passed by an ordinary majority (that is, a majority of the members elected to each chamber, 89 votes in the House, 30 votes in the Senate), can go into effect as soon as they are signed by the governor. A bill passed by an ordinary majority after June 30 and before the end of the calendar year does not go into effect until July 1 a year later. For an appropriation bill this delay would be fatal because the fiscal year to which it pertained would have expired. However, the Constitution provides that the legislature can — by a three-fifths vote in each chamber, 107 in the House, 36 in the Senate — order an earlier effective date for a bill passed after June 30, and this order is essential for any appropriation bill which does not receive final action prior to July 1.

Two late recesses Understandably, legislators view June 30 as the target date for recessing until a fall session when they return to act on vetoes. But the legislature ran into difficulties in adhering to this timetable the past two years and did not complete action on bills in 1973 untilJuly 2, and in 1974 the legislature did not recess until July 12. In both years the two houses could not agree before July 1 on the content of several appropriation bills.

Senate Bill 1261, the appropriation for the Liquor Control Commission, was one of these bills. The commission is charged with the responsibility for licensing and regulating the holders of state liquor licenses. The governor's budget document which accompanied the budget message of March 6, 1974, said that the commission expected to issue 29,500 licenses in fiscal year 1975 and that it was asking for $412,600. The legislature recessed after receiving the budget message (there was a primary election for state officers and others on March 19) and did not return until April 4. On that day, S.B. 1261 was introduced with Sen. Kenneth W. Course (D., Chicago) as the principal sponsor and Sens. Cecil A. Partee (D., Chicago), the then minority leader;Philip Rock (D., Chicago), assistant minority leader; and James Donnewald (D., Breese), another assistant minority leader, as cosponsors. The amount requested was $412,500.

Three readings required The Constitution requires that each bill be read by title on three different days before it can be passed. This procedure, of ancient parliamentary origin, is a safeguard against hasty action and also marks stages in the movement of a bill toward passage: "first reading" is a formality followed by referral of the bill to a committee; "second reading" is when a bill may be amended; and "third reading" is the stage when it is voted on for passage.

S.B. 1261 was given its first reading at once and referred to the Committee on Assignment of Bills which assigned it to the Appropriations Committee. On

March 1975/Illinois Issues/81

Constitution of 1970
Article IV. The Legislature
Section 10. Effective date of laws
The General Assembly shall provide by law for a uniform effective date for laws passed prior to July I of a calendar year. The General Assembly may provide for a different effective date in any law passed prior to July I. A bill passed after June 30 shall not become effective prior to July I of the next calendar year unless the General Assembly by the vote of three-fifths of the members elected to each house provides for an earlier effective date.

Article VIII. Finance Section 2. State finance
(b) The General Assembly by law shall make appropriations for all expenditures of public funds by the State. Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.

A conference committee is a device for differences between the two houses. If it fails, a conference committee is appointed. Naturally, the majority party gives Itself a majority on these committees

June 4, two months later and after an open hearing on the bill, the Appropriations Committee recommended to the Senate that the bill be passed — but with amendments.

Second reading came on June 6. Amendment No. 1 added $2,400 to the amount for the state contribution to the employee pension fund due from this agency. Amendment No. 2 trimmed a total of $53,400 from several line items. Amendment No. 3 shifted $22,410 out of operations funds and earmarked this sum "for the sole and exclusive use of the Office of Attorney General for the purpose of all costs of legal services. Payments from this appropriation are to be made only upon certification to the Commission by the Attorney General." The attorney general, William J. Scott, is a Republican; the Liquor Control Commission is part of the administration of a Democratic governor. Amendment No. I was adopted on a voice vote without a roll call, but the Democrats in the Senate opposed the other two amendments, however losing to the Republican majority, 26 to 29.

Following the bill
The Senate passed the bill, 45-0, on June 11 and sent it to the House the next day where Rep. Jack Beaupre (D., Kankakee) was the House sponsor. The bill was at once read a first time and sent to the Committee on Assignment of Bills which assigned it to the Appropriations Committee. On June 25, the committee reported it back to the House, recommending passage. On June 28 the bill was read a second time; Rep. Beaupre offered an amendment to restore the cuts made by the Senate and to delete the attorney general item; and the amendment was adopted without a roll call. The bill was read a third time on June 29 and passed with the House changes, 149-3.

That same day, June 29, the bill was returned to the Senate with the request that the Senate concur in Rep. Beaupre's amendment, but the Senate declined and immediately sent the bill back to the House, asking that the House recede from the Beaupre amendment.

On June 30 — traditionally the last day before the summer recess — the House refused to recede from the amendment and asked that a joint conference committee be appointed.

A device for adjusting differences
A conference committee is the mechanism for '"adjusting differences" between the two houses on the final form of a bill. If such a committee, which consists of an equal number of members from both houses, fails to reach an agreement or if the report it submits fails to win approval in either house, a second conference committee may be appointed. If this second committee fails to resolve the differences, ordinarily the bill is dead.

A number of bills had gone to conference committees, and it had become obvious that the legislature could not complete its work on June 30. In the case of S.B. 1261, the conference committee report was considered on July 2 and failed to win adoption in both houses. A second committee was appointed, but its report also failed to win adoption — on the same day, July 2. With July 4 holiday approaching, the legislature took a breathing spell until July 11. On that day, both houses suspended their rules and reconsidered their previous actions on S.B. 126, thus restoring it to life. Both houses then accepted the second conference report by more than the three-fiths

NOTE: For a discussion of the issues involved in the attorney general provision, see: "Attorney General and Governor fight over control of lawyers employed by executive agencies," Ruhin G. Cohn, Illinois Issues, January 1975. pp. 8-11.

82/Illinois Issues/March 1975

vote necessary to allow the bill to become effective immediately (with the governor's signature), so there would be money to operate the Liquor Control Commission for another year.

These conference committees consisted of five representatives appointed bv the speaker and five senators appointed by Sen. Howard Mohr (R., Forest Park), the chairman of the Senate Committee on Committees. Composition of both conference committees was the same: Reps. Beaupre, the House sponsor; Michael J. Madigan (D., Chicago); James Washburn (R., Morris), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee; J. David Jones (R., Springfield); and Leo D. LaFleur (R., Bloomingdale). Senate members were Kenneth W. Course, the chief Senate sponsor; Thomas Hynes (D., Chicago); Edward McBroom (R., Kankakee), Senate Appropriations Committee chairman; Stanley Weaver (R., Urbana); and Mohr. Because the Republicans had a majority in each house, they of course gave themselves majorities on the conference committees.

The contents of the two conference reports were the same. They restored the $53,450 in cuts made in the Senate but retained the attorney general provision that the Democrats opposed. The final vote in the House on adoption of the second report was 145 yeas, 2 nays; in the Senate, 39 yeas, 6 nays, 1 present. The bill was then sent to the governor.

Governor has four kinds of vetoes
The governor can exercise four kinds of vetoes: (1) a traditional veto of an entire bill, (2) an item veto in which he strikes an item in an appropriation bill, (3) a reduction veto reducing an amount in an appropriation bill, and (4) an amendatory veto in which he returns a bill for changes which he recommends. The usual majority — a majority of those elected to each house — can restore a reduced amount, but to override an item veto or a full veto requires a three-fifths majority. The usual majority vote suffices to adopt the changes recommended by the governor in an amendatory veto.or a three-fifths vote in both houses will override the governor's recommended changes and restore the bill to its original language.

The governor vetoed the attorney general provision on July 26 asserting that the item "contravenes the intent and letter of the Constitution and constitutes a departure from time-honored

The governor has four types of vetoes; in 1974 he used some form of veto on two-thirds of appropriation bills

practices in this State." He also reduced the retirement contribution to the original amount before the Senate amendment. The Senate, on motion of Sen. Course, overrode the reduction veto of the pension contribution on November 20, but no motion was made to override the veto of the attorney general provision. The House, however, did not even attempt to override the pension fund reduction, so S.B. 1261 stood as approved in part and vetoed in part by the governor.

During the 1974 spring session the Senate Republicans were able to insert an attorney general provision similar to that in the Liquor Control Commission bill into the appropriations for the Racing Board (S.B. 1264), Environmental Protection Agency (S.B. 1537), State Comptroller (House Bill 2248), and Fair Employment Practices Commission (H.B. 2709); and the governor vetoed these items. Such a provision was also put into the bills for the Department of Law Enforcement (S.B. 1267), Department of Transportation (S.B. 1345), Department of Local Government Affairs (S.B. 1346), and Capital Development Board (S.B. 1382), but it was withdrawn from these bills by conference committee prior to final passage. A modified attorney general amendment in the Department of Public Aid appropriation (S.B. 1559) was signed into law. All these bills went to the conference committee stage, and most of them went also to a second conference committee.

Alternative: no operating funds
The fact that a three-fifths vote was required to pass these bills because final action came after June 30 probably strengthened the position of the minority Democrats because their votes were necessary for agreement. The alternative would have been for the Republican majority to leave vital agencies without operating funds. The disagreement over the attorney general provision pitted the Democratic governor against the Republican attorney general and, at times, the House against the Senate. This controversy held up the passage of many appropriation bills, and hence public payrolls, and delayed the customary recess for almost two weeks, but it was only one of several instances where the legislature — usually upon the recommendation of the House or Senate Appropriations Committee — adjusted budget figures upward or downward. For example, the legislature (following the Senate lead) systematically increased the funding for public employee retirement systems, which were said to be seriously under-funded, at least in an actuarial sense. The governor used his reduction veto on such increases in 39 bills.

Vetoes affect 85 appropriation bills
The governor used some form of veto on 85 or two-thirds of the 128 appropriation bills sent to him for fiscal 1975, and his cuts totaled $353 million. The legislature in the fall session restored $37.3 million and passed additional appropriations of $61.8 million. The total appropriations after the fall session for fiscal 1975 is $8.4 billion, which can be compared to the $7.9 billion budget recommended by the governor in March.

Although Illinois is recognized as a state with an executive budget and there is an impressive annual budget document (two volumes totaling 630 pages in 1974) to prove it, there is no "budget bill" as such. Instead, just as the Liquor Control Commission had its own appropriation, so does almost every major agency and many minor agencies. This makes it difficult to follow what is happening with respect to the budget as

March 1975 / Illinois issues/83

'One weakness in the appropriations process is the limited amount of time available . . .''

a whole. In only a few instances are related agencies joined in a combined or omnibus bill.

One reason for this is the practice of distributing the sponsorship of the many appropriation bills among the members of the administration party so that more legislators can become familiar with handling appropriation bills and claim success for getting them passed. Under a system with one budget bill or a few major bills, probably only the leadership would be involved as sponsors and the rank and file would have little to say or do.

Insufficient time
One weakness in the appropriations process is the limited amount of time available to consider appropriations. In Congress and most state legislatures, budget presentation is a high priority soon after the session commences. In Illinois, the session opens on the second Wednesday in January, but the budget is not due until the first Wednesday in March. And when the legislature recesses for a March primary and does not return until April, another month is lost. In 1974, most of the appropriation bills lor fiscal 1975 were introduced in April:

Month introduced March April May June

Senate bills 006 068 024 006 104

House bills 003 102 035 011 151

(this tabulation includes many non-budget bills.)

The budget submission date is fixed by law, but the legislature could shift it back to January if it desired, although this would not help if a March primary were retained in even-numbered years since the legislators would probably want to recess in order to campaign for renomination. An alternative would be to shift the primary to late summer or early fall. This could have the effect of hastening the recessing of the spring session and would also shorten the campaign period. Still another option would be to return to biennial budgets with the budget being made up in the first year of the biennium, but this would probably require constitutional change.

84 /Illinois Issues/March 1975