Senate compromise: Jeremiah Joyce's role

By MICHAEL D. KLEMENS

Sen. Joyce

After two months of manuevering and three and a half weeks of gridlock, the stalemate in the Illinois Senate was ended May 11. The conflict began when Senate Minority Leader James " Philip (R-23, Wood Dale) assembled a majority coalition of his 28 Republicans and two disaffected Democrats to demand a series of rules changes that would have strengthened the GOP hand in the Senate. Although Philip and his "Sturdy Thirty" comprised a majority able to block all Democratic actions, they lacked the 36 votes needed to overturn Senate President Philip J. Rock (D-8, Oak Park) when he ruled their efforts out of order.

What followed were weeks of protests by Rock that Republicans were seeking to gain through Senate rules what voters denied them in November, control of the Senate. In turn. Republicans protested Rock's use of the chair to deny them the opportunity to move their agenda. So nothing happened.

The May 11 compromise restored Sen. Frank D. Savickas (D-15, Chicago) to the leadership post he had been stripped of four months earlier, the action that had prompted the defections of Savickas and Sen. Jeremiah E. Joyce (D-14, Chicago). The compromise did not accomplish two rules "reforms" that Philip had sought: the ouster of Sen. Howard Carroll (D-l, Chicago) from the chairmanship of the Appropriations I Committee or a rule change that would have allowed Rock to be overruled by 30 instead of 36 members.

Besides returning to Savickas a $6,500 per year assistant majority leader's post (the parties agreed to create two new leadership slots, one Democrat and one Republican), the compromise contained a number of procedural changes, particularly in how the appropriations pie is divvied up. And even though he did not get rid of Carroll, Philip was able to claim that the powerful committee chairman had been reined in. The compromise:

• Requires the appropriations committees to hold public hearings in Senate conference rooms on conference committee reports, ending the practice of working out differences in Carroll's office during marathon meetings the last days of the session.
• Limits conference committee reports to the differences between the two chambers unless approved by the Rules Committee; requires that conference committee reports sit on the members' desks for one day.
• Adds Savickas and two Republicans to the Appropriations I committee, bringing the partisan edge to 14 (including Savickas) Democrats to 12 Republicans.
• Adds one Republican to each of the other standing committee.
• Makes the 7 to 5 split on the Rules Committee 8 to 6, with Savickas as one of the eight Democrats.

Throughout the dispute Philip's position hinged on the support of Savickas and Joyce. Savickas's beef was well known, the loss of his leadership post. The motives of Joyce, who shunned interviews, were more of a mystery, but the 46-year-old senator has a history of independence. He was mentioned as a possible Republican mayoral candidate in 1987. He is a former Cook County assistant state's attorney and served from 1974 to 1978 as 19th Ward alderman on the Chicago City Council. He teaches at the John Marshall Law School. His district is 89 percent white and conservative, and it includes large numbers of Chicago firemen and police officers. During a post-settlement interview with Illinois Issues' Statehouse reporter Mike Klemens, Joyce offered his thoughts on the Senate struggle and his role.

Klemens: Why did you refuse to join the Democrats?

Joyce: The objective was to force a reconsideration of the way that Senator Savickas was removed, and as it progressed there evolved a program which made sense with respect to changing the way business has been done here for the last 11 years that I've been here.

Klemens: Had Savickas gotten a bad deal?

Joyce: I think the way that the Savickas removal was handled was kind of highhanded. I was unclear as to the motivation and the purpose, and at the time a lot of it was going on I was not involved in it. But we have never had a clear definition as to how the leaders should be chosen, the assistant leaders, and as to what procedure was to be used if it was going to be something other than the president of the Senate making the choice.

When all this was going on, Savickas was originally looked at as a Chicago leader. He then became at some point by someone's definition the Cook County leader, and there was set up some procedure before the county Democrats, the county white Democrats, I guess, to choose who would be a leader. And some of the people who had been previously defined as downstate Democrats, white downstate Democrats, became county Democrats. . . . So I assume that the rules were never established, and the interpretation and the representation of the rules which was coming to me kept changing.

I viewed it as kind of an attempt to stack and assure an outcome. And if that was the way it was to be done, then they should have just told Savickas from the outset, "This is it. You're through." Rather than run around and get people to support you and you're going to have a vote and then the rules are changed and all of this.

So that started it. And out of that evolved this coalition and the trade-off being some procedural changes, particularly those affecting the appropriations process in exchange for supporting Savickas. Most of those discussions I was not privy to; most of them involved Savickas and the Republicans; some of them I was. But I think that what was transpiring I was kept abreast of by Savickas. So I think that I had a day-to-day knowledge of how it was going.

Klemens: Is the resolution satisfactory?

Joyce: It has the potential to be satisfactory. It depends on how the chairman of the appropriations committee responds. . . . I think Savickas having a leadership

June 1989 | Illinois Issues | 27

spot is a fine outcome for him. I'm very satisfied with it. . . . I think there's a potential for a good outcome from them [the new rules]. I mean many of us had attempted to accommodate ourselves to the system, which doesn't say a lot for the way things should be. That year they all voted for the sale of machine guns. That type of stuff in the conference committee was a source of embarassment. I think there's less likelihood of that now.

Klemens: This isn't the first time you've stuck up for a member of the Senate. Two years ago when you were electing Rock you were one of the ones that stood with Senator Netsch. How come you keep popping up in these roles?

Joyce: I don't know. That's what my wife wants to know.

Klemens: Does it have to do with the way you view the Senate as a series of personal relationships?

Joyce: I suppose there's an element of that. . . . The thing with Dawn [Netsch] was —she was so entitled to what she was seeking at the time. I don't know why I get involved in these.

Klemens: Personally what kind of pressure has been brought on you, fair or unfair?

Joyce: I think the reading into this as if it was somewhow involving the mayor of Chicago and Senator Degnan — I think that part of it was a little uncomfortable. Because it is important that this administration get off to a good start and having a good operating relationship down here is important to that. The idea that this was somehow putting that in jeopardy made me feel a little bit uncomfortable.

Beyond that there really isn't a lot of pressure that can be put on me. I don't feel that the Democrat party as such is entitled to my unquestioned loyalty. I've always felt that I've given and they've gotten more out of me than I've ever gotten out of them. So I didn't feel the pressure from the idea of Democrat versus Republican. That wasn't bothering me at all.

Klemens: What is your relationship with the Democratic party? You've been variously described as a renegade or a maverick.

Joyce: When I came into politics I did not come in as a part of the organization. I have very close relationships with some people who are very involved in the Democrat party — Hynes, Daley. When it comes to campaigning I've always gone out on my own with people not strongly identified with political parties. My district is such that I'm still able to go with a door-to-door message.

Klemens: How's your relationship with Phil Rock?

Joyce: I don't know. I don't really know what my relationship is with Phil Rock. I don't think our relationship is really capable of being defined. . . . It has never been defined.

Klemens: Is the operation of the Illinois Senate going to be better for what went on here?

Joyce: It should be if you accept as better the notion that each member will have a better opportunity to have his thoughts listened to, particularly with respect to how monies are spent.

Klemens: How about the operation of the Democratic party in the Senate? Are we less apt to have a repeat of what was unfair with Savickas?

Joyce: I don't know. I'm not privy to a lot of the things I'm sure President Rock has had to do to maintain the appearance of a united operation. I don't know how particular people got to where they are. What went on that made Demuzio a leader or Dick Luft a leader or Earlean Collins a leader?

Klemens: Have you ever thought of changing parties?

Joyce: I gave a lot of thought to it at one time, but I don't think about that any longer.

Klemens: Why not?

Joyce: I think that some of the party switches that were made up in Chicago are viewed by the public as totally opportunistic, devoid of any philosophical base. And I think there's ample justification for the people to hold that opinion. And so to try to move into a political context of that nature, articulate what you want the people to think your reason is for doing it that, is well nigh impossible at this point.

Klemens: You come from a relatively conservative, traditional district?

Joyce: Oh yes. My district is fairly well informed locally. I suppose there's a lot of districts that are as informed on national and statewide issues. But local politics in that section of the state is something that people pay a lot of attention.

Klemens: Are you going to run again?

Joyce: I was not going to run last time and I was not going to run the time before that, so I don't like to say I'm not going to run because people say that's what he's always said. But if I had to make the decision today on whether I was going to run again, I would not run. I think that 12 years down in the General Assembly is sufficient. There's a couple things I would like to see done down here before I leave. And I think they're going to be done if there's sufficient revenue. One has to do with funding the education formula in a way so the application of the formula can be fairer with respect to school districts that have a better base.

Klemens: Do you have some suburban school districts?

Joyce: My district is two-third suburban. . . . And in the city part of my district, the overwhelming majority of the students are in the parochial school system. I have Marist, Brother Rice and Mother McAuley —three private high schools in the city part of my district.

Klemens: You said a couple of things. The formula change is one. What's another one?

Joyce: If we could establish a permanent ratio between what the student should pay and what the public should pay in our university system. An overwhelming majority of the students in my district seek to enroll in the public university system It is still a great bargain, but I thought it was the one truly great thing that they had from the state and it has become very, very difficult for some of them. I can see that because I see what comes into my office and I see what happens in the junior college system.

Klemens: Do you have some notion of what that split should be?

Joyce: I'd like to see it one-third student two-thirds state.

Klemens: Would you put yourself through the exercise of the last six weeks again?

Joyce: When I go through these, win or lose, I don't say that. If this thing had gone the other way and everything had remained status quo, I still wouldn't have any regret about it.

June 1989 | Illinois Issues | 28