Bill Summaries

Elementary and Secondary Education

Revised formula to hike school aid
The amount of state (and local) aid per student would rise $100, from $1,464 to $1,564, under the proposed 1981-82 state aid formula.

The formula, used by the State Board of Education to calculate the amount of state aid apportioned to each of Illinois' 1,011 school districts, has three basic parts: enrollment, assessed by the state; property valuation, assessed locally; and the level of local taxes under a state-set ceiling.

H.B. 1353, sponsored by Rep. Gene Hoffman (R., Elmhurst), significantly revises the enrollment part of the formula, decreasing the so-called "weighting" factor which favors districts with a large number of low-income students, like Chicago and East St. Louis, and increasing the factor to benefit districts with an average number, like Springfield. The House unanimously passed Hoffman's revised formula proposal, 144-0, May 20, and promptly sent it to the Senate.

S.B. 954, sponsored by Sen. John Davidson (R., Springfield), would effect the same revision in the formula and result in the same rise in aid per student. It passed the Senate May 27, 46-11.

Income tax alternative for schools
Taxpayers may have come closer this year to a choice between property tax and the income tax to finance schools than they have in the four years since the income tax alternative was suggested. Income tax advocates took a new approach this year, calling for a statewide advisory referendum on the issue.

S.B. 597, sponsored by Sen. Jim Gitz (D., Freeport), would allow voters in the November 1982 general election to voice their opinion on substituting a local income tax for the property tax currently used to finance schools. Gitz' proposal for a statewide advisory referendum passed the Senate 35-16, May 21.

Advocates who stuck with the local option approach, however, fared no better than in previous years. H.B. 404, sponsored by Rep. Jim Reilly (R., Jacksonville), longtime champion of the income tax alternative, would authorize individual school districts to substitute a local income tax (collected by the state) for all or part of the local property tax (collected by the county) if their taxpayers voted to do so in a binding referendum. Reilly's local-option approach was initially rejected on the floor of the House May 20. He had called for a second vote, but H.B. 404 was among those the House consigned to its spring calendar, and another vote won't come until then.

24/July 1981/Illinois Issues

S.B. 111, sponsored by Sen. John Maitland (R., Bloomington), identical to Reilly's bill, was never considered in committee in the Senate.

Fiscal oversight for schools to avoid more crises
The kind of fiscal crisis that nearly closed Chicago schools in 1979-80 would no longer threaten Illinois schools under a series of comprehensive proposals developed by the Joint House and Senate Chicago Board of Education Investigation Commission in the wake of the crisis.

In January, the commission made 23 recommendations, 20 that required legislation. A seven-bill package (H.B. 1445-1451), sponsored by Rep. Glenn Schneider (D., Naperville), himself a teacher, embodied a number of the recommendations. Generally, the commission recommended the State Board of Education become the fiscal overseer of all Illinois schools and the General Assembly tighten the legislative controls clamped on Chicago schools in January 1980. Five of the seven bills passed the House:

H.B. 1447 would require districts to report to the state board within seven days if their local boards approved a deficit budget for the second consecutive year. (Passed the House 153-1, May 17.)

H.B. 1445 would authorize the state board to set standards for determining when a district faces a fiscal crisis, and identify districts that do. And it would require those districts to submit a solution to the fiscal problem to the state board within 45 days. (Passed the House 141-0, May 20.)

H.B. 1451 would require the city treasurer of Chicago, who is also school treasurer, to maintain separate accounts for bond revenue to finance different capital projects and for tax revenue to repay the bonds (debt service). It would allow the Chicago board to spend any surplus in those bond revenue and tax revenue capital accounts (the surplus being the amount beyond that required to meet obligations). But the measure would bar the Chicago board from spending any interest earned on the investment of pension, liability, fire/ safety or capital money. (Passed the House 150-1, May 20.)

H.B. 1450 would authorize the Chicago board to delegate to the superintendent the authority to approve contracts and expenditures for $10,000 or less. (Passed the House 137-11, May 17.)

H.B. 1449 would require the Chicago board to authorize the superintendent and chief fiscal officer to hire or fire their own immediate staffs. (Passed the House 134-14, May 20.)

The two that didn't pass are:
H.B. 1446, which would have required districts to hire only certified public accountants and to retain a single accountant or firm no more than five consecutive years, failed in the House 67-55, May 20.

H.B. 1448, which would have tightened the controls the General Assembly placed on the Chicago board after the crisis (chiefly the requirement that the board include an estimate of anticipated tax revenue in its budget), was tabled on second reading in the House.

In addition to Schneider's commission package in the House, a 12-bill noncommission package in the Senate would also tighten the original budgetary controls imposed by the General Assembly on the Chicago board. Ten of the bills, S.B. 1176, 1177, 1179-1184, 1186 and 1187, are sponsored by Sen. Arthur Berman (D., Chicago). The Senate passed the entire package May 29.

Unit district tax increase without referendum
Unit districts, except for Chicago, could raise property taxes, in some cases double them — without prior taxpayer approval — under a controversial proposal which could save schools but might embitter taxpayers.

The state, by statute, sets ceilings on property taxes; there is one limit on how-much districts can tax without a referendum and a higher limit on taxes if approved by referendum. There are ceilings for both types of school districts: unit districts with classes for kindergarten through twelfth grade; and the so-called "dual" districts, where one district includes K through eighth grade and another district includes the high school grades. Currently, the tax ceilings favor areas with dual districts. Individually, the tax rate ceilings for the state's 437 separate grade school districts and 126 separate high school districts, are lower than those for the state's 448 unit districts. But in combination, the tax rate ceilings for the dual districts are significantly higher than those for unit districts.

H.B. 1071, sponsored by Hoffman, who is the current chairman of the General Assembly's School Problems Commission, would increase the ceilings for major taxes levied by unit districts, in one case doubling them. No referendum would be required for the following increases: the education tax rate (teacher salaries) from $1.60 to $1.84 per $100 equalized assessed property valuation; the building tax rate (maintenance) from 37 1/2 to 50 cents; the transportation tax rate (buses) doubled from 12 to 24 cents; and the fire/life safety tax rate, doubled from 5 to 10 cents.

The same measure provides for further tax increases by unit districts but referendum approval is required: units could double transportation taxes from 20 to 40 cents and fire/life safety from 10 to 20 cents.

If approved, Hoffman's proposal could mean conditions would be favorable for consolidation of some dual districts, since they would lose their tax rate ceilings advantage.

Hoffman's idea is not new, but this is the first time it's moved off the drawing board. The House, in a surprising move, passed the controversial proposal with seven votes to spare, 96-37, May 13. But it must also pass the Senate, where its chance of passage is slim.

Neighborhood school districts in Chicago?
Under another proposal to emerge from the Chicago school crisis, the General Assembly would investigate the feasibility of replacing the single Chicago school districts and its appointed board of education with neighborhood districts with elected boards.

S.B. 286, sponsored by Sen. Leroy Lemke (D., Chicago), would create the Chicago Community Schools Study Commission, authorized, but not required to investigate the community schools concept. Lemke would retain the current Chicago district to administer such specific programs as special education, vocational education and gifted education. The Senate passed Lemke's proposal 50-6, May 22.

H.B. 625, sponsored by Rep. Douglas Huff (D., Chicago), identical to Lemke's bill, was among those bills the House assigned to its spring calendar.

H.B. 1452, another Schneider bill, although not part of his fiscal oversight package, would have created neighborhood districts, but would retain the central Chicago school board. But Schneider would have required the mayor of Chicago to appoint six parent members to the central board from nominations submitted by a parents' commission. Schneider's bill failed in the House 78-53, May 20.

Beating the high cost of driver's education
Schools would still be required to offer behind-the-wheel training, but state grants to finance driver's education would increase 300 percent under a proposal put forth as an alternative to de-mandating the costly program altogether. Illinois requires behind-the-wheel training, but due to the recession, state grants to schools to finance it have fallen far behind the cost.

This year Gov. James R. Thompson, with the support of the State Board of Education, called on the General Assembly to de-mandate driver's ed along with other costly programs. None of the six bills introduced to de-mandate driver's ed reached the House or Senate floor.

The alternative, a bill to generate more state revenue for driver's ed grants to schools, did pass the House. H.B 293, sponsored by Rep. Helen Satterthwaite (D., Urbana), would increase the fee charged for a learner's permit or initial driver's license from $8 to $20. (Fees for renewal or duplicate licenses would remain the same.) Half of the current $8 fee goes for driver's education; of the proposed $20, $12 would go for driver's ed. The House overwhelmingly passed Satterthwaite's bill, 111-31, May 16.

July 1981/Illinois Issues/25

State policy, local standards for competency tests

Students would be required to pass three competency tests before they could graduate from high school under a controversial proposal to set a state policy on competency testing as recommended by the Illinois Schools Problems Commission. Many schools already test for competency according to their own standards.

Under S.B. 766, another Davidson bill, the state would require the tests, effective July 1, 1982, but would leave schools the right to set their own standards. Under Davidson's proposal, schools would test students prior to fourth grade, eighth grade and the junior year in high school. Testing well in advance of graduation is intended to give students enough time to get remedial help, if necessary, to meet standards by graduation. The measure, supported by the State Board of Education, would include guidelines for setting standards for schools which do not already test for competency.

Davidson's proposal is controversial, not only because of the debate over the competency requirement, but because it raises the mandates/reimbursement question. Under state law that took effect January 1, the state can no longer mandate new programs unless it reimburses local governments for the cost. Does Davidson's proposal amount to a new mandate, since the state would require that schools test for competency? Or doesn't it, since many schools already do? The state board estimates Davidson's proposal would cost Illinois another $3 million over fiscal 1982 and 1983 — $2.4 million in grants to the schools that do not yet test, and $600,000 to the state board to advise those districts. Davidson, however, has not introduced a companion bill to appropriate such reimbursement.

The Senate passed Davidson's bill 31-20, May 26.

State Pay Raises

Pay Raise Board for top officials
A public panel would have the power to recommend the amount of state government pay raises under a controversial proposal aimed at banning so-called "lame duck" pay raises — and thus avoiding the ire of vengeful voters.

The idea of creating a public pay raise panel is far from new in Illinois, and other state have such panels. Presently, Illinois law allows the General Assembly to raise state government pay, but bars any raise from taking effect until the following term of the office. Traditionally lawmakers have waited to pass pay raises until their biennial "lame duck" session, held following the November general election and prior to the beginning of their new terms in January.

The General Assembly last raised its pay and the pay for top executive and judicial officers — and the legislators' expense account package — during the now-notorious 1978 lame duck session. Legislators passed bills which Gov. Thompson conveniently vetoed immediately (from out-of-state) to allow an almost instantaneous override. Irate voters retaliated in 1980. They approved the first legislative initiative ever to appear on the Illinois ballot, the so-called "Cut-back Amendment" to the Constitution, which effectively reduces the membership in the House from 177 to 118 in 1982.

S.B. 269, sponsored by Sen. Berman, would ban lame duck pay raises outright by creating a public panel to recommend legislative, executive and judicial pay raises. The four legislative leaders would each appoint three members — none of whom could be connected with lawmakers or lobbyists — to serve without pay on the panel.

The bill goes into some detail on the amounts of the specific salaries, but generally the panel would have the authority to:

•  recommend an increase or decrease in salaries of constitutional officers;

•  recommend that salaries of cabinet-level, executive agency directors be set at or above prescribed minimums;

•  recommend an increase or decrease in the salaries of legislators and their leaders;

•  recommend that salaries of the judiciary be set at or above their current levels, since the Constitution bars any decrease during current terms.

The panel would not, however, have the authority to recommend adjustments in the other components of legislators' "budgets," such as allowances for district office, per diem and mileage.

The panel would be required to hold public hearings before it made recommendations to the General Assembly. The panel's recommendations to the General Assembly would take effect within 30 days unless vetoed by both the House and the Senate via resolution.

The Senate passed Berman's pay raise panel proposal with four votes to spare, 34-20, May 19.

Legislator pay raises and expense increases
The salary of legislators — and their expense account package — would have been raised under another proposal, which if passed would have also banned any future lame duck pay raises.

S.B. 369, sponsored by Sen. Mark Rhoads (R., Western Springs), would have raised pay from $28,000 to $32,000 a year, effective in 1982. The first such legislative pay raise proposed since the 1978 lame duck session, Rhoads' bill was among the most highly publicized this session. It would have raised the legislator's allowance to operate a district office, from $17,000 to $19,000 a year; raised the per diem allowance to cover cost of room and board when the legislature is in session, from $36 to $44 a day; and raised the mileage allowance to cover the cost of transportation to and from the capital, from 20 to 25 cents per mile.

The Senate killed Rhoads' pay and expense hike proposal in committee.

Raising the legislators' district office allowance
Legislators' district allowance would be raised $5,000 a year under another proposal. Unlike the other components of the legislators' budgets (salary, per diem and mileage), the district office allowance is not paid to the legislators. Rather, it is paid via a voucher system for rent, secretarial salaries, stationery, etc. The state, in effect, pays the legislator's district office bills up to $17,000 a year. Any bills in excess of that must be paid by the individual legislator.

H.B. 972, sponsored by Rep. Alfred Ronan (D., Chicago), would raise the district allowance to $22,000 a year. The total increase to the state would be $1.2 million in fiscal 1982 when the legislature will still include its full 236 members. But it would drop to $885,000 in fiscal 1983 when the size of the House will be cut by 59 members.

The House passed Ronan's allowance-hike proposal with only two votes to spare, 91-72, May 18.

Judicial pay raises; incentive to stay on bench
Salaries for circuit court judges and associate judges would have been raised substantially under a proposed designed to discourage judges from leaving the bench. The pay proposal would have put judges on a par with lawyers in private practice.

The General Assembly last increased judicial salaries during the 1978 lame duck session when legislative pay was increased. That judicial package totaled $5 million.

H.B. 156, sponsored by Rep. Ronald Stearney (R., Chicago), would raise circuit court salaries by $20,500 a year: the 375 circuit judges would receive $70,500 instead of $50,000, and the 281 associate judges would get $65,000 instead of $44,500 annually. Annual cost for the increases would be $13.5 million. Stearney's proposal, however, was among the House bills assigned to the spring calendar.

26/July 1981 /Illinois Issues

Pension Raises and Policy

Legislators' pension raise
Pensions for legislators with the least seniority — and pension contributions by all legislators — would be raised without hiking the pensions for longest service. This would allow a better pension for the legislators with least seniority who may not win a return seat because of the cut of 59 state representatives.

Currently, legislators who serve one through eight years earn benefits at the rate of 3 percent of their salary each year: after eight years they retire with a maximum pension equal to 24 percent of their salary. Those who serve 9-12 years earn at the rate of 4 percent, retiring at 48 percent. Those who serve 13-20 years earn at the rate of 5 percent, but the maximum pension is 80 percent of salary. Service beyond 20 years does not increase the pension.

Currently, legislators contribute a total of 10 percent of their salaries toward their total pension package (7 percent toward their own pensions, 2 percent toward possible widow/widower pensions, and 1 percent toward the built-in, cost-of-living increase).

Pensions for legislators with the least seniority would be raised by H.B. 545. Initially a teacher pension bill, it was amended by Rep. J.J. Wolf (R., Chicago), to include a legislator pension provision. Wolf's proposal considers the fact that more legislators are serving less time in the General Assembly than in previous decades. Wolf's proposal would equalize the rates at which legislators earn benefits by replacing the current graduated scale with a flat 4 percent scale. The graduated scale is weighted to the advantage of those with over 13 years seniority. The proposed flat scale would in theory be more equitable, but in practice would increase benefits for a large group of legislators, those with less than eight years in office.

Wolf would raise the maximum pension for legislators with eight years in office from 24 to 32 percent of salary, but would not change the maximums for longer service. He would also, however, increase legislator's pension contribution from 7 to 7.5 percent (total contribution would go from 10 to 10.5 percent of salary).

Wolf's proposal would cost an additional $196,000 per year (payout per year coupled with amortization over 30 years), only $34,000 of which would eventually be offset by the contribution increase. Under Wolf's proposal, the total unfunded accrued liability of the General Assembly Retirement System would increase by $1.6 million.

The House passed Wolf's proposal with only 5 votes to spare, 94-55, May 11.

Meanwhile, the traditional approach of raising maximum 20-year legislative pensions failed. H.B. 1783, sponsored by Minority Leader Arthur Telcser (R., Chicago), would have raised the 20-year maximum pension from 80 to 85 percent of salary, but it would have offset this increase by raising the contribution by all legislators from 10 to 11.5 percent of salary. Under Telcser's approach, the additional cost to the state would have been $112,000, most of which — $102,000 — would be offset by the increased contributions. The system's liability would have increased by only $950,000. Telscer, however, didn't push his bill and it was among the dozens of bills consigned to the House 1982 spring calendar.

Investment policy for public pensions
Illinois will not begin to invest public pension money in a big way since an overall policy didn't pass this year. In February, Gov. Thompson in his State of the State address suggested the General Assembly set a state policy on investing what he called "one of the largest single pools of investment funds available to us . . ." to revitalize the Illinois economy. And in March, Thompson named John Gilchrist, senior vice president of Chicago's A.G. Becker Co., to chair his 22-member Illinois Study Commission Public Pension Investment Policies.

Although the bills didn't pass this year, their introduction suggests that Illinois will consider the question of a state policy on investment of public pension funds, possibly as early as next year when Thompson's commission is scheduled to submit its report.

Some $4 billion in employee contributions to state, county and municipal pensions programs, including the six state retirement programs, is currently invested, but there is no overall policy on how the funds are invested.

The three bills introduced this year all died in committee, but they revealed a similar approach. Rep. Alan Greiman (D., Skokie) in H.B. 10 suggested creating a special investments account: employee contributions would be invested, for example, in Illinois industry, small business, family farms, or urban or senior citizen housing, and the interest earned would be used to decrease unfunded accrued liability. Rep. Herbert Huskey (R., Oak Lawn) in H.B. 26 proposed the eventual investment of up to 80 percent of Illinois pension money in Illinois industry, 30 percent within five years. Sen. Leroy Lemke (D., Chicago) made a similar proposal in S.B. 25, but called for the eventual investment of 50 percent, with 25 percent within five years.

Mortgages: investment option for pension funds
State, county and municipal pension systems would gain another investment option — home mortgages — under a proposal which profited from Thompson's call for a policy on investing Illinois pensions in the state economy. Investing public pension money in home mortgages is not a new idea, but this is the first time it has been seriously considered.

S.B. 851, another Davidson bill, would allow Illinois' pension systems to invest in mortgages held on owner-occupied Illinois homes, generally on those mortgages and mortgage/insurance combinations which represent no more than 95 percent of the appraised value of the property.

The Senate passed Davidson's investment option unanimously, 57-0, May 29.

Teacher/state employee pension bonus plan
Some retired teachers would get a second pension bonus, and other teachers and state workers would get a first-time pension bonus in a replay of the strategy that worked last year. Last year, as an alternative to annual pension increases, the General Assembly passed H.B. 1009 to provide a one-time pension bonus for all teachers who retired before January 1, 1976. The bonus was based on the flat rate of $12 per year taught. The measure also required that teachers pay 8.25 instead of 8 percent annually into the pension fund.

Gov. Thompson, however, amendatorily vetoed the bill to provide only for the one-time pension bonus for teachers who had retired before January 1, 1971. Thompson wanted the General Assembly to provide the bonus for all state employees, and he wanted the bonus based on a graduated rate, weighted to the advantage of those who had retired the earliest. The House attempt to override fell one vote short, forcing acceptance of Thompson's version (P.A. 81-1517).

July 1981/ Illinois Issues/27

This year, H.B. 682, sponsored by Rep. Clarence Neff (R., Stronghurst), would expand last year's efforts by providing the same bonus, at the same flat rate of $12 per year served, for all teachers and all executive branch state employees who retired before January 1, 1977. Like last year's bill, H.B. 682 would affect teachers covered under all three retirement systems: the downstate Teachers Retirement System, Chicago Teachers Pension Fund and the statewide University Retirement System. Unlike last year's bill, however, H.B. 682 would also affect state employees covered under the State Employees Retirement System (executive branch). The current bill also does not require that teachers or state employees increase their annual pension contribution.

The expanded bonus provided for in the Neff bill would cost an estimated $14 million (payout per year and amortization over 30 years). The total increase in the unfunded accrued liability for the four pension programs affected would be an estimated $99 million.

The House passed Neff's pension bonus bill by a wide margin, 124-23, May 19.

Motor Vehicles

Stronger implied consent includes tests for alcohol, drugs
Police would take more drunk or drugged drivers off the roads — and judges would keep them off longer — under a widely supported, long-awaited proposal recommended by the Illinois Motor Vehicle Laws Commission to bring Illinois' so-called "implied consent" law up to national standards. The proposal would replace Illinois' current law which Secy, of State James Edgar calls the "weakest in the nation." Edgar made overhauling Illinois' loopholed law his No. 1 legislative priority.

In 1972 Congress required the states to put implied consent laws on their books or face the loss of federal transportation aid. Under implied consent, the state requires that drivers charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI) submit to tests for intoxication. The drivers imply their consent to such mandatory breath tests when they apply for licenses. Congress, however, left the states to set their own penalties for drivers who refuse such mandatory tests.

In 1972, Illinois duly passed an implied consent law, but there are loopholes in the requirements for the breath test. To plug the holes, Rep. Roger McAuliffe (R., Chicago), secretary of the Motor Vehicle Laws Commission, introduced H.B. 143 which is based on a model statute drafted by the President's Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws. Edgar supports the bill.

The most significant revision would expand implied consent to encompass drivers charged with driving while under the influence of drugs as well as alcohol, by requiring them to submit to blood and urine as well as breath tests for intoxication.

Drivers would still have the right to refuse to take the tests, but this decision could now be used in court; currently, refusal to take the test cannot be brought to the attention of the court.

And the penalty for refusing to take the test, if convicted, would be suspension of the driver's license for six, instead of three months, on the first offense. Subsequent offenses would carry a one-year suspension. Currently the penalty is three months' suspension, with no differentiation for number of offenses.

Among other major revisions, drivers would lose the rights they have under the current law to: 1) confer with their attorney or make phone calls before deciding to take the test; 2) wait 90 minutes before taking the test; and 3) take a second test to disprove the first.

Another revision would change the right of convicted drivers to have DUI convictions erased from their records if they have completed a court-ordered, drunk/drugged driving rehabilitation program in lieu of conviction. Under McAuliffe's proposal, the secretary of state would maintain the record of the court orders, but those records would be open only to the courts and the secretary of state.

The House overwhelmingly passed McAuliffe's bill to revise implied consent, 156-7, April 29.

A back-up to McAuliffe's bill was introduced by Rep. Harlan Rigney (R., Freeport). His proposal, H.B. 504, would also have doubled and quadrupled penalties for refusal to take the tests, but it would only have reduced — not eliminated — the waiting period. Rigney's limited-rights proposal was tabled in committee.

Almost identical to McAuliffe's bill in the Senate is S.B. 457, sponsored by Sen. Max Coffey (R., Charleston). It passed the Senate, also by a wide margin, 41-4, May 29.

Stiffer penalities for hit-and-run, reckless drivers
Penalities for convicted hit-and-run drivers and convicted reckless drivers would be increased substantially, and in some cases doubled, under two proposals also aimed at keeping drunk or drugged drivers off Illinois roads.

Under S.B. 625, sponsored by Sen. Timothy Simms (R., Rockford), drivers convicted of leaving the scene of an acccident resulting in death, personal injury or damages of $1,000 or more, would have their licenses suspended for one year instead of six months.

The Senate unanimously passed Simms' double-penalty proposal, 52-0, May 21.

Under S.B. 493, sponsored by Sen. Karl Berning (R., Deerfield), drivers convicted on two reckless driving charges, instead of three (as the present law provides) within one year would have their licenses suspended for at least six months. Berning's bill was among those the Senate put on spring calendar.

Right turn on red
Illinois will not become the first state to repeal its right-turn-on-red law. H.B. 656, sponsored by Rep. Philip Collins (R., Calumet City), would have erased the law which went on the statutes in 1976, effective in 1982. But Collins' bill failed miserably in the House, 14-148, May 20. H.B. 72, sponsored by Rep. Roman Kosinski (D., Chicago), identical to Collins' bill, was tabled earlier in committee.

55 mph speed limit
Will Illinois raise the 55 mile per hour speed limit? Congress set a national fuel conservation policy in 1974 that required states to lower the speed limit from 70 to 55 miles per hour (if they still wanted federal transportation aid). If federal policy changes under the Reagan administration, Illinois and other states may be expected to raise the limit.

S.B. 996, sponsored by Sen. Charles Chew (D., Chicago), chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, would increase the speed limit to 65 miles per hour on highways selected by the Illinois Department of Transportation. The Senate passed Chew's bill 56-1, May 29.

H.B. 89, sponsored by Rep. Donald Deuster (R., Mundelein), would have raised the speed limit to 65 miles per hour on interstate highways and state toll highways, but his bill was consigned to the House spring calendar. H.B. 551, sponsored by Rep. Dwight Friedrich (R., Centralia), which also upped the limit on interstates, added a provision to increase the limit to 60 mph on other highways. It was tabled at committee deadline.

28/July 1981/Illinois Issues

Truck weight limits: lifting the 'Illinois Iron Curtain'?
Illinois and three other states are the only ones which have not raised legal truck weight limits to the national maximum. Under a proposal designed to improve both the national and state business climates, the General Assembly is considering lifting what truckers call the "Illinois Iron Curtain."

The issue appeared to reach a head in spring 1979 when independent truckers in Illinois used a nationwide shutdown over high diesel fuel prices to call attention to the low weight limits in Illinois. A sympathetic Gov. Thompson nevertheless refused to even temporarily raise Illinois limits because of the potential damage to the already deteriorating Illinois roads.

The federal Department of Transportation set national limits at 80,000 pounds in 1975, and since then 46 states have raised their limits to the standard. Illinois' limit is still 73,280 pounds. If three other states (Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee), now considering increasing their limits approve the national maximum, Illinois will remain the only holdout.

The Illinois Department of Transportation estimates that raising the state limits to the national maximum would deteriorate Illinois roads by another 17 percent. The department, which faces a 10 percent budget cut in fiscal 1982, estimates the cost of repairing that additional damage at $35 million.

S.B. 1202, sponsored by Sen. Charles Chew (D., Chicago), chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, would raise the Illinois limits to the national maximum, but it would offset the cost of repairing the additional road damage by charging truckers an entirely new fee based on the number of miles trucks travel.

The fee scale would be weighted to take advantage of the heaviest trucks, much as the registration scale is set. The heaviest trucks, generally those with a maximum 80,000 pounds gross-weight-with-load, would pay the maximum fee of 5 3/4 cents per mile. The lightest trucks, generally those with a 50,000 pound minimum gross-weight-with-load, would pay the minimum fee of 2 cents per mile.

Estimates of the revenue this new fee would generate vary because of a lack of comprehensive statistics on how many miles trucks travel in Illinois each year. But initial estimates range from $75 to $100 million per year, much beyond the amount estimated to offset the additional damage from heavier trucks.

On third reading, the Senate sent Chew's bill back to the Transportation Committee for further study.

State government

Gubernatorial succession
The succession to the governor's office would be spelled out by statute to clear up questions raised for the first time as to whether sufficient succession is prescribed by the 1970 Constitution. The Constitution says if a vacancy occurs in the governor's office, the order of succession is the lieutenant governor, the elected attorney general, and the elected secretary of state.

The questions arose earlier this year from speculation that Lt. Gov. Dave O'Neal might resign to accept a position in the Reagan administration. The next two officials in succession are both currently appointed — Atty. Gen. Tyrone Fahner and Secy, of State James Edgar.

S.B. 191, sponsored by Sen. Dawn Netsch, (D., Chicago), would extend the succession, by statute, to include the other constitutional officers and the legislative officers. The measure would add to the order of succession the elected comptroller, elected treasurer, Senate president and House Speaker. In the event of a vacancy in the governor's office now, those in line are Lt. Gov. O'Neal, Comptroller Roland Burris, Treasurer Jerome Cosentino, Senate President Philip Rock, and House Speaker George Ryan.

The Senate passed Netsch's extended succession proposal unanimously, 57-0, May 29.

Open Records
Illinois may be among the first states to adopt a model open records law, setting a clear policy on what government records can be released under the public's right to know and what records cannot be released under the individual's right to privacy. Under consideration is a proposal patterned after the model law drafted in 1980 by the National Conference of Commissions on Uniform State Laws. The open records issue has become complicated in recent years by the increasing reliance on computers.

H.B. 780, sponsored by Rep. Harry Lein-enweber (R., Joliet), a member of the national conference who helped draft the model law, would create a three-part policy on the release of government records in Illinois.

First, local government and the executive branch of state government would be subject to the new law, but the governor could exempt some agencies. The legislative and judicial branches would automatically be exempt.

Second, for agencies subject to the law, all government records would be released with the exception of:

•  criminal records whose release would interfere with an investigation;

•  inter-or intra-agency memos whose release would interfere with the agencies' decisionmaking power;

•  test records whose release would interfere with objectivity;

•  real estate records whose release would interfere with pending acquisition;

•  commercial records whose release would reveal trade secrets or other confidential data;

•  a client's records whose release would interfere with his right to privacy.

Third, for agencies subject to the law, all government records on clients would be released with the exception of criminal, tax, financial welfare and medical records and evaluations if the individual is a potential state employee. However, the new law would allow government agencies subject to the law to keep only those records necessary to serve their clients and it would expressly forbid agencies to trade non-related records.

The maximum penalty for violation of the new law would be 30 days in jail and/or a $500 fine.

The House overwhelmingly passed Leinenweber's model open records proposal 143-13, May 15.

Nonpublic funds: no spending without appropriation
State or local government agencies would no longer be allowed to generate, invest or spend nonpublic money unless authorized by state law or local ordinance, under a proposal prompted by a controversial judicial employee profit-sharing program.

The Illinois Supreme Court has refused to allow the Illinois auditor general to audit the accounts of the so-called "profit-sharing" programs for employees of the Board of Law Examiners and for employees of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, which fall under the high court's administrative jurisdiction.

At the state level, the controversy over unauthorized spending of nonpublic money also involves the Illinois Medical Center Commission and the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority.

H.B. 760, sponsored by Rep. Ted Lever-enz (D., River Grove), chairman of the Legislative Audit Commission, would bar state agencies from spending nonpublic money unless appropriated by the General Assembly, and it would authorize the auditor general to audit such accounts. The measure would also ban local agency spending without consent of its governing body. The House passed Leverenz' proposal by an overwhelming 134-3, May 20. □

July 1981/Illinois Issues/29