Executive ReportA RECENT release of $ 11.4 million in state debt service grants by the governor will help 336 local school districts meet their interest and principal payments on school construction bonds. These funds, released on May 24, provide $8 million for districts in the six- county Chicago area. This total includes $3.7 million for Cook County school districts, $2.1 million to DuPage County, $1.2 million to Lake County, $685,000 to Will County, $160,000 to McHenry County and $164,000 to Kane County school districts. Grants to downstate school districts include $480,000 in St. Clair and Madison Counties of the Metro East area, $213,000 in Sangamon County, $215,000 in Macon County and $126,000 in McLean County. The state grant assistance program provides local school districts with one-half of the annual principal and the interest payments on their capital improvement bonds according to a formula which allocates the largest proportionate grants to less wealthy districts. Almost one-third of the state's 1.039 school districts now receive state debt service grants on bonds issued from January i, 1969, to September 30. 1973. According to the governor, an additional $4.1 million in debt service grants could become available to 142 school districts, including 57 districts not currently receiving the grants, if the General Assembly approves S.B. 1584. The bill, sponsored by Sen. David C. Shapiro (R., Amboy), provides for the payment of state debt service grants to districts for bonds issued after October 1, 1973. The bill was in the Senate Rules Committee in late May. |
Attorney General Opinions
Governmental ethics questions
S-1080 to A, Ralph Comba, state's attorney
Bureau County, 4, 30, 76; S-1081 to Sec of
State Michael.J. Howlett, 5/5/76; and
S-1077 to Bruce Sagan, chairman, Illinois
Arts Council, 4/21/76.
Three recent opinions involved some aspect of governmental ethics or conflict of interest. In S-1080, the attorney general ad vised that a conflict of interest arises under the Corrupt Practices Act (Ill Rev Stat.. 1975. ch. 102. sees. 3 and 4) when a school hoard passes upon a contract with a teacher who is the spouse of a school board member, ft makes no difference whether or not that board member abstains from voting on she contract; there is still a conflict.
In the opinion to Hewlett, the attorney general advised it is a violation of the Illinois Purchasing Act (ch. 127, sec. 132.11-1)when the wife of a member of the General Assembly is employed as an attorney in the Technical Services Division of the Office of Secretary of State.
The opinion to Chairman Sagan advised that members of the Arts Council are not required to file the statement of economic interests required under the Governmental Ethics Act(ch. 1 27, sec. 214.11ff). The opinion, however, does not relate to the authority of the governor to require filings of statements of economic interests by executive order.
Opinions in brief
State copyright, S-1070: In general, the
state may be entitled to a copyright on any
work subject to copyright under federal law,
A state agency may also allow an
independent contractor either to use the state's
exclusive copyright or to obtain his own
exclusive copyright to intellectual property
developed pursuant to a state contract.
County funds, S-1072: A county highway department has no authority to maintain a checking account for federal funds independent of the county treasurer.
Community college sites, S-1074: The Capital Development Board is not required to approve the selection of a site for a community college. This authority is vested in local community college board subject to the approval of the Illinois Community College Board. Conceivably the Capital Development Board might find a site unsuitable from an engineering or architectural standpoint, however., County budget, S-1075: The county board has power to limit the budget for the office of state's attorney. Sheriffs posse, S-1079: The power of a sheriff to summon a posse comitatus is intended only to meet emergencies ana does not authorize him to establish a permanent auxiliary police force.
|
KEY FEATURES of the medical malpractice legislation enacted by the General Assembly in 1975 (Public Act 79-960) were ruled invalid by the court in an opinion by Justice Goldenhersh. (See also: "Doctors, lawyers, patients, state: Conflict views of the malpractice problem," Feb. 1976, p. 3ff.) The act's provision for medical review panels was held invalid because such panels were given judicial functions, whereas the Constitution (Art. VI, sec. 1) "vests the exclusive and entire judicial power in the courts." The panels were to be made up of a circuit judge, a lawyer, and a physician, and by terms of the law "the lawyer and physician members were vested with authority equal to that of the judge, to determine and apply the 'substantive law'." This, the court said, was a judicial function. Since the panel procedure was a prerequisite to jury trial, the court additionally found the procedure was "an impermissible restriction on the right to trial by jury" (guaranteed by Art. I, sec. 13). But, the court added, "In so holding, however, we do not imply that a valid pretrial panel procedure cannot be devised," thus leaving the door open for the legislature to rework the panel provisions. The court also held invalid the $500,000 limit on recoveries in malpractice cases, agreeing that this discriminated against "the most seriously injured victims of medical malpractice." The constitutional basis here was the prohibition against special laws (Art. IV, sec. 13). Justices Underwood and Ryan filed partial dissents disagreeing with this part of the majority opinion. A provision forbidding increases in malpractice insurance rates existing on June 10, 1975, without approval of the state director was also found unconstitutional because the court said it was special legislation. The court's objection here was that this rate-regulating provision did not apply to new policies written after June 10, 1975.
Tax on leased equipment In an opinion by Justice Crebs the court upheld the constitutionality of a provision of the Use Tax Act and a departmental rule based on the provision requiring leasing companies to pay the use tax when they lease medical and scientific equipment and computers to hospitals, universities, laboratories and other nonprofit institutions, even though the tax is not imposed when such property is sold to a nonprofit charitable, religious or educational institution. |
28/ July 1976/ Illinois Issues