Double-Dipping:
DOUBLE-DIPPING. You won't find the expression in any dictionary, but it is well understood in governmental circles as the political equivalent of moonlighting — holding a second public job in addition to a full-time government position. In less elegant language, double-dipping has been defined as "going to the public trough more than once."
Is it legal? Generally speaking, yes — as long as you don't get paid for both jobs at the same time and the two jobs are not incompatible (a job in the executive branch of state government would be an incompatible job for a legislator).
But double-dipping would be totally and absolutely banned for members of the General Assembly under a state constitutional amendment now being proposed. A group calling itself the Coalition for Political Honesty is now gathering the necessary signatures to place the amendment on the November ballot. Double-dipping is also the subject of another proposed amendment supported by 23 of the 25 Republican senators. The Senate proposal, however, is less sweeping. For either amendment to be on the November ballot, supporters must meet a May 2 deadline for proposing constitutional amendments. The Coalition needs 375,000 signatures on petitions and the Senate Republicans need approval of their proposal by a three-fifths vote in the two houses of the General Assembly. If both fail to meet the deadline, there will be no November referendum on this issue.
As it stands now, neither the Constitution nor any existing state laws in Illinois totally preclude members of the General Assembly from being on more than one public payroll. Article IV, Section 2(e) of the Constitution contains the following provision:
This means that a state legislator can receive compensation from another level of government, but only when he or she is not in Springfield on General Assembly business. For example, legislators who are also public school teachers (and some are) can't be paid their teacher's salary for the days spent on legislative business. But they can keep their teaching positions and be paid for days when the legislature is in recess. It is, in fact, lawful for a legislator also to serve on a county board, according to a January opinion of the attorney general (File S-1027), subject to the constitutional ban on double pay for the same time.
How many double-dippers?
How many legislators now hold
another paying job in addition to their
legislative position? The official record
available at the time this was written
affords only a partial answer to the
question, but it does indicate that 15
senators and 37 representatives were
receiving compensation from another
level of government during 1974. This ranged from providing legal service as
attorney for local governments to such
regular occupations as city or county
employee.
Of these 52 legislators, 35 are Democrats and 17 are Republicans. Thirty-eight are from Cook County (where the Democratic Party is dominant) and 14 from downstate. This alignment seems to reflect the fact that in Cook County public service is usually a full-time occupation and may become a career. Service as a public employee may be rewarded by an opportunity to go to Springfield; after that, a judgeship or other higher office may be the prize.
The kinds of positions held by the 52 legislators were as follows:
|
Senate |
|
House |
||
|
|
D |
R |
D |
R |
|
Attorney for local unit |
0 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
Chicago government |
3 |
0 |
9 |
1 |
|
Other city, village |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Cook County government |
4 |
0 |
6 |
1 |
|
Other local units |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
|
Teacher |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
|
U.S. Military |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
9 |
6 |
26 |
11 |
(The latter three were persons apparently in reserve or retirement status.)
The full strength of the legislature is 236 members — 59 senators, 177 representatives. The 52 covered above represent one-fourth of the Senate and one-fifth of the House. It is not possible to determine the number of first-term members who also may be in the double-dipping category.
May 1976 / Illinois Issues / 3
This information is based on the responses to Item 7 of the Statement of Economic Interests which public officials must file annually with the Office of Secretary of State (county clerk in case of local officials), supplemented by the 1973-74 Illinois Blue Book biographies of legislators.
Item 7 of the disclosure statement requires the individual, under oath, to "List the name of any unit of government which employed the person making the statement during the preceding calendar year other than the unit of government in relation to which the individual is required to file." The statements examined were those which were filed between January 1 and April 30, 1975, and the count above is based only on legislators who served in the preceding (78th) General Assembly. Thus, the answers legislators gave to Item 7 referred to calendar 1974 — the year in which these individuals became legislators. New legislators were excluded from the count because they did not take office until 1975 and could have held another public job during 1974 without being in the position of double-dipping.
New statements covering 1975 are due to be filed on or before April 30 this year, but these will not be available for this article. And the Blue Book which will carry biographies of incumbent legislators will not appear until midsummer or later.
The past debate
The double-dipping proposal that
lost at the convention read: "No member of the General Assembly shall
receive compensation and allowances as
a public employee and as a member of
the General Assembly." The defeated
provision on dual officeholding read: "No member of the General Assembly
shall hold any other elective or appointive office." This language meant that: "To be
seated as a member of the General
Assembly, a member who is a public
employee would necessarily have to take
a leave of absence, if possible, or resign
from his position as a public employee,"
according to the majority committee
report. "The intent of the language is to
preclude dual or joint salaries at any
time during a legislative session. For
example, if the General Assembly were
in session during January, February and
March, a member who was a policeman
could not receive any salary except his
legislative salary. But when the session
concluded at the end of March, he could
resume his salaried position as a policeman while ceasing to receive his salary
as a legislator," stated the report. During floor debate, majority committee spokesman Anthony M. Peccarelli of Wheaton stated, "The purpose of the double-dipping ban was to
eliminate the possibility of being paid
more than once from tax funds." On the
dual officeholding proposal, he said that
allowing individuals to hold two offices
at once limits the number of persons in
public service and suggested that "public service should be broadened and
more people should have the opportunity [to hold office]." Peccarelli said the combined ban on
double-dipping and dual officeholding
was intended to eliminate the possibility
of divided allegiance — the old problem
of having to serve two masters. He
explained, however, that the ban on
dual officeholding would not apply to
holding a second public position which
was only ministerial in nature. The
intent was to eliminate one person from
holding two positions in which substantive policy decisions might be made.
But, even if a legislator held a second
government position that was ministerial, he couldn't get paid for both jobs at
once, according to the proposed language. The majority proposals lost. A convention vote of 57-33 killed the language
providing for a ban on dual office-holding. The motion to strike was made
by Delegate John L. Knuppel, now a
state senator (D., Virginia). The provision which is now part of the Constitution came from four members of the
Legislative Committee as a minority
proposal. It won 46-36 over the majority's double-dipping ban language in a motion for substitution. The delegates who submitted the
successful minority proposal included
three of the four Legislative Committee
members from Cook County: Clifford
P. Kelley, William J. Laurino (now a
Democratic state representative), and
Frank D. Stemberk. The other was
Mary A. Pappas from Lake Bluff in
Lake County north of Cook County. The minority stated in its report that
it was not their intent that "a legislator
receive a 'double, dual, or joint salary,'
(that he receive compensation for public
employment for the same day that was
utilized performing official legislative
functions), but that he only be compensated by the employing local governmental entity for days that were used
actually performing his duties as a
public employee notwithstanding the
fact the General Assembly may be in
session but recessed." The minority argued that such factors as the increased cost of living, the decline in real purchasing power, and an unhealthy economy were good reasons to allow individuals to hold second jobs in order "to assure a decent standard of living for . . . dependents." Another point the minority made was that since
the General Assembly does not meet all
of the time, nor in fact for the entire
calendar year, an additional job would
not impair a legislator's ability as a
public official. The minority said that the "purpose is to simply exclude a public servant
from receiving compensation as a
legislator and for his extra-legislative
position on the same day, which is the primary intent of both majority and
minority proposals.... A public servant
that possesses the qualities to be a good
legislator, i.e., having expertise in some
particular field of government or profession, would subject the employing political subdivision to an undue hardship if required to take a leave of absence for the duration of the legislative session in addition to unscheduled
special sessions. To require resignation
is unjust, particularly since a legislator's
duties are not full-time.
4 / May 1976 / Illinois Issues
The issue of double-dipping and dual
officeholding was debated six years ago
by the Sixth Illinois Constitutional
Convention. A strong restriction on
double-dipping coupled With a ban on
dual officeholding was proposed by the
convention's Legislative Committee as a
majority proposal, but it lost to the
present provision which was submitted
by: a minority of the committee.
It is the consensus of the minority, that the majority opinion, if adopted, would result in the people of the State being deprived of the services of many 'more than well qualified' potential legislators who are servants of the public and is, at best, a discriminatory provision against public employees."
Debated again
Now the issue is being debated again.
The proposal from the Coalition for
Political Honesty actually includes
three amendments to the Constitution.
Besides banning double-dipping, the
group wants another amendment to
prohibit legislators from voting on
issues where there is a conflict of
interest, including personal, family or
financial interests; plus a third amendment to prohibit legislators from being
paid their legislative salaries in advance.
Legislators now can draw their pay two
years in advance at the start of a new
General Assembly, or can take it in two
annual installments in January of each
year.
|
The specific language to ban double-dipping reads: The language of the Senate Joint
Resolution Constitutional Amendment
56 on double-dipping reads: |
|
At the present time the Coalition drive claims the support of over 100 individuals and organizations. It remains to be seen whether or not this support can be translated into the needed signatures and majority voter approval. The chairman of the Coalition is David Ellsworth of Springfield, who is the assistant director of research and statistics for the Illinois Office of Education. The double-dipping ban amendment and the two related proposals were drafted by Patrick Quinn, secretary-treasurer for the Coalition. He once served as an assistant to Gov. Dan Walker.
Since the inauguration of the Coalition campaign, charges and countercharges have been hurled by the various participants.
One thing that the Coalition campaign has accomplished is a division of the participants into two factions. The state's lawmakers are being painted in terms which suggest — at least — venality and corruption. At the same time proponents of the amendments are being viewed and labeled as morally self-righteous, intent upon imposing their moral codes upon everyone else.
In a statement provided to the author, Coalition Chairman David Ellsworth argues that "the fact that so many legislators are on two public payrolls creates inherent conflicts of interest." Ellsworth further charges that "the Daley organization of Cook County uses high paying city and county jobs as rewards to those who are dependable regulars .... Providing such rewards for regularity increases the Mayor's control of the General Assembly, and as such has an impact on citizens throughout Illinois."
In response, opponents argue that the Political Honesty Campaign by its rhetoric and tactics assumes dishonesty and political corruption, and thus makes those who oppose the amendments appear to be in favor of dishonesty. They further point out that a case for holding two jobs and thus receiving additional compensation can legitimately be made in a period of combined inflationary and recessionary pressures.
Chances for success
The key to success, however, may well
rely upon the kind of campaign conducted by the Coalition. Charges have
already been made that the data released by the Coalition are less than
accurate. On February 1, 1976, the
Coalition released a list of double-dipping legislators. This was challenged
on the grounds that a number of names
had been erroneously included. It was
pointed out that the Statement of
Economic Interests that had to be filed
required a listing of positions held for
the previous calendar year, and that a
number of legislators no longer held the
positions involved — some of them even
resigning prior to actually assuming office. The language itself of the double-dipping amendment may prove to be a
problem. The ban would apply only to
members of the General Assembly.
Critics may ask, what of other public
officials within the state? Are they
different from members of the General
Assembly? Why are lawmakers being
singled out? Clearly, the ban is extremely broad. Literature provided by
the Coalition states: "The double-dipping amendment
prohibits legislators from all compensation from other governmental entities
including contractual services. There
are no exceptions because this is the
only fair, no-loophole standard." Thus the ban is intended to be total,
comprehensive, and absolute. But, how
absolute could it be? A case in point: for
the purposes of filing income tax
returns, the interest received from U.S.
savings bonds is defined as personal
income and thus subject to taxation.
Surely some state legislators own such
bonds. Could receiving such interest
income be viewed as "compensation"
from another governmental entity? The
courts would ultimately have to decide
these matters on a case-by-case basis. May 1976 / Illinois Issues / 5
If the backers of the double-dipping
amendment and the other related
measures secure the necessary signatures by May 2, they still need voter
approval on November 2 to amend the Constitution.