Letters

Home rule and collective bargaining

EDITOR: There is a totally erroneous statement in part 4 of the Banovetz-Kelty series on Home Rule (May). They say "the legislature mandated collective bargaining for local government without any evidence of improper use of home-rule authority."

The legislature heard a growing litany of unilateral refusals by home-rule units to deal in good faith with their employees, in each of the six sessions between the adoption of the current Constitution and the passage of the Public Labor Relations Act.

Finally, it concluded that these governments would not voluntarily engage in collective bargaining.

To say the legislature acted without evidence is absolutely wrong — and it blemishes an otherwise fine series of articles.

Paul R. Booth
International Union Area Director
AFSCME

Mr. Booth: The statement is not erroneous. When evaluating the legitimacy of uses of home-rule powers, it is necessary to differentiate between those uses which are illegal and improper and those which are legal and proper even when reasonable people can reasonably question the wisdom of them. A 1 percent tax levied by a home-rule city on the sale of food and beverages by restaurants is legal and proper even though restaurant owners might argue that such a tax would harm their business. A 10 percent tax on such sales would be legal, but its propriety might be questioned on the grounds that it imposes a confiscatory burden on the restaurant business.

Prior to the passage of the collective bargaining mandate by the General Assembly, both home-rule and non-home-rule cities and villages had the authority to engage in (or refuse to engage in) collective bargaining. Each local governing board was free to exercise its own judgment about whether or not collective bargaining would best serve its community's public interest. The desirability of public employee collective bargaining has been a major political issue at the national, state and local level for many years. Reasonable people — elected officials, personnel specialists, scholars, community leaders and political commentators — have argued for and against mandatory collective bargaining in the public sector.

The well-considered refusal of many governing boards to engage in collective bargaining was neither an illegal nor improper use of their powers. It was a decision to choose that which was deemed best for that community. You might reasonably argue that such refusal was unwise, or that it was unfair to local employees, but you cannot argue that failure to use municipal powers for this purpose was illegal or improper.

In short, the legislature had no evidence that home-rule units had engaged in improper use of their home-rule powers with respect to collective bargaining; the testimony presented to the legislature documented only that many municipalities had refused to use those powers for that purpose.

You are correct in asserting that the legislature had evidence that many communities "would not voluntarily engage in collective bargaining," but this evidence does not lead to a conclusion that home-rule powers had been misused.

James M. Banovetz
Professor and Director
Division of Public Administration, Northern Illinois University

Funding for literacy programs

EDITOR: On behalf of the Illinois Literacy Council and the many local literacy program directors across the state, I want to thank you for the informative article, "Stomping out illiteracy in Illinois," which appeared in the June 1986 issue of Illinois Issues. If our statewide council and local programs are to make an impact on the serious problem of adult illiteracy, it is essential that Illinoisans be made aware of their existence, what is being done to address the problem, and how they might become involved. The article by Porter McNeil provided information in all of these areas.

I must correct one error, however, concerning the Secretary of State's Literacy Grant Program which provides state funds for support of local literacy programs. On page 19 the article states, "A unique aspect of the state literacy grants is that they are awarded directly to private, community-based projects instead of to the more established education agencies (such as community colleges, Adult Basic Education — ABE — programs and community college literacy programs) that ISBE money is restricted to." Secretary of State literacy grants are awarded to all types of literacy programs, including education agencies (community colleges and adult education programs), libraries and library systems and community-based organizations.

This marks the first time in Illinois that state funds, specifically in support of literacy programs, have been made available to all types of programs from a single source. In addition to our grant program, the Illinois State Board of Education and the Illinois State Library have awarded grants in support of literacy to educational agencies and libraries, respectively, and many corporations and foundations in Illinois have made funds available to community-based organizations. It is the combination of all of these sources which has established a strong base of programs in our state. I should add, also, that all grant providers release funds to local programs only on the stipulation that they work cooperatively with other agencies in their area who provide literacy services so that a coordinated and cost-effective effort is established which prevents duplication of services.

Joan Seamon
Illinois Literacy Program Coordinator
Office of the Secretary of State

August & September 1986/Illinois Issues/9