Questionable Strategy

“What were they thinking?” That seems to be the gist of the post-mortem commentary on the ill fated attempt by the state Senate to add $431 million to the budget in the closing hours of the legislative session that ended on May 31. The anticipated showdown over that strategy ended with a whimper when the Legislature returned to Springfield last week to quickly and quietly remove the added funds by withdrawing an amendment to the capital construction bill that that threatened to halt billions of dollars worth of projects.

It may have seemed like a good idea at the time, and the strategy was fairly simple … approve the budget bills but throw additional spending on a bill that simply had to be passed, the bill for capital construction projects. In other circumstances the strategy might have paid off, but when a moving force meets and unmovable object then something has to give. When the unmovable object happens to be Speaker Michael Madigan then, most likely, the force will crumble. And crumble it did.

Madigan and House Minority Leader Tom Cross agreed early in the session to work together to rein in spending, jointly adopted and preserved a spending estimate that was $2 billion below what the Governor requested in March and $1 billion below the spending goal adopted by the Senate, and they were steadfast in their refusal to budge. A coterie of Democratic senators, mostly relatively new, girded for battle and ready to go to the mat for the higher spending levels. Exasperated by a May 31 deadline and little cooperation from the House for a compromise they embarked upon and convinced their Democratic brethren to adopt the capital bill amendment strategy. After the capital bill with its additional spending reached the House Madigan responded by filing a motion to “nonconcur” (the same as requesting a “no” vote) on the Senate amendment that was adopted on a voice vote. As a topper, he then adjourned the House for the summer … leaving the Senate with the choice of removing the amendment or moving the bill to a conference committee. With the House adjourned the only result that could have been achieved immediately would have been to remove the amendment, but that would have meant a strategic loss. So, the Senate adjourned taking no further action and hoped that some groundswell would occur to bolster their position. In the meantime the bill was in a holding pattern.

In the intervening weeks a groundswell did occur, but with the opposite effect. From the Governor to business, union and construction interests, there was very vocal support for withdrawing the amendment and moving construction projects along, which is exactly what happened on June 22 when the legislature reconvened for a few hour session. The Senate removed the additional funding amendment and the capital bill went cleanly to the Governor’s desk.

The Senate strategy contained three major flaws. First, there is an unwritten rule in the legislature that capital construction authorization bills are not fodder for gamesmanship of any kind. And, second, when Madigan is firmly convinced that he’s following the appropriate course there is simply no swaying him. He said early in the session that major spending reductions were an absolute must, especially after the income tax increase enacted last January. He meant what he said, and senior members of the Senate should be well aware of that attribute. Third, from June 1^st until December 31 a three-fifths vote is required to pass laws with immediate effective dates. With Senate Republicans, in particular, prepared to vote no on any spending expecting anything new to be approved post-May 31 was a pipedream. The focus now will be to determine if any budget modifications can be negotiated and addressed next January. That will also allow time to determine whether revenue estimates are on track or higher or lower than expectations.

Budget and Deficit

Illinois new fiscal year is set to begin tomorrow, July 1. While the Governor has not yet signed off on the new budget, he has given an indication that he’ll use his reduction veto powers to try to provide some “room” for future modifications. Since the Illinois Constitution only provides the Governor with the power to reduce, not add, many are waiting to see exactly what strategy he will embark upon. Most likely, it means that he will try to reduce some items hoping that the legislature will take the pool of savings he produces and reallocate those resources in November or January it to areas where he feels it is needed most. It may be a very bumpy ride, especially since the budget that wound up on his desk was a bottom-up spending plan … crafted after weeks and months of hearings and discussions by rank and file legislators. And it’s a budget process that legislators were mighty proud of. While they hated the limited resources they had to divvy up, they felt they did the best they could to listen to advocates and allocated as best they could, including reducing agency administrative, contractual and travel line items in order to find funds for many programs that the Governor zeroed out. If the Governor reduces funding for any of the myriad of programs that were “saved” through legislative intervention then there may be a major veto session battle brewing.

Historically, gubernatorial budget reductions have not found much fancy with the legislature and are commonly overridden and the expectation might be that the General Assembly would just restore the funds. However, the “Catch-22” that Governor Quinn may find himself in is that the cuts he may make will become permanent and not be reallocated. Senate Republicans, on one-hand, may take the position that these are additional cuts and should be permanent. By opposing an override of reductions they would cement those reductions. The legislature could also move to approve the Governor’s reductions. By approving the cuts also become law. So, unless he is able to force some agreement, the path to spending more by reducing is fraught with peril.

In the meantime, the ability of the state to take advantage of additional federal Medicaid matching funds through the stimulus ends on July 1. For the last few months the Comptroller’s Office has been trying to find ways to maximize those matching dollars as much as possible. Additionally, the Comptroller has been processing vouchers that were submitted in January, so the payment cycle is at 5+ months. In its budget bill the General Assembly extended the lapse period until December 31 so services provided and billed prior to July 1 could be paid utilizing normal procedures.

Reapportionment Maps Approved

No surprise, the Governor has approved both of the bills that set new political boundaries for General Assembly and Congressional candidates in 2012. Those maps were drawn by Democrats who controlled the process from beginning to end for the first time in 40 years. Republicans have indicated that they will file court challenges to in the near future but it is expected that their objections will fall short.

Expecting that the approved maps will be the final product, many legislators are reviewing their options, especially those who were lumped into districts with other incumbents. The Illinois Constitution allows legislators in the post-remap election to run in any territory that is created out of any portion of their former districts. Some have already announced their intentions while others are planning announcements soon. The rule is if they choose to run from an area that they don’t live in they have to move into that new area no later than May 1 following the election.

Congressional candidates do not have any residency requirement and are not required to live in their districts should they win.

No Decision on Casino Expansion

An interesting procedural development has placed a strategic hold on casino expansion legislation. Because Governor Quinn has expressed concern about the “heaviness” of the approved bill due to the extent of the proposed expansion, the Senate has decided to give him more time to ponder and proponents more time to convince him of the necessity. Just moments after the bill passed its final hurdle, approval by the Senate, President Cullerton filed a “motion to reconsider” the vote by which it passed. This procedure is common, but it also prevents a bill from moving to the next stage of the process until the matters are disposed of. The next stage of the process is the Governor’s desk, and the motion can’t be disposed of until the Senate is back in session or until the sponsor of the motion withdraws it. If the Governor decides to approve the bill Cullerton can withdraw the motion and let the bill continue to the Governor. If not, then he can keep the bill on hold indefinitely. The point is that sponsors have spent too much time getting this proposal passed to have it scuttled without taking their best shot. One thing is clear … with very few exceptions any veto or even any changes the Governor makes in the bill will doom it.

Legislative Appointments

No replacements have been named yet for Rep. Mark Beaubien who died a few weeks ago, and for Rep. Dan Reitz who resigned last weekend.

Veto Session

The General Assembly will convene on October 25, 26, 27 and November 8,9,10 for its veto session.

Bills of Interest

Only bills that are still alive are listed.

HB 248 – Rep. May/Sen. Garrett - Amends the North Shore Sanitary District Act. Authorizes the board of trustees of a sanitary district to enter into an agreement to sell, convey, or disburse treated wastewater with any public or private entity located within or outside of the boundaries of the sanitary district. Provides that any use of treated wastewater by any public or private entity shall be subject to the orders of the Pollution Control Board. (Current Status: Sent To Governor)

HB 308 – Rep. Tryon/Sen. Link - Creates the Closed Loop Well Contractors Certification Board. Provides that the Closed Loop Well Contractors Certification Board shall advise and aid the Director in (i) preparing subject matter for continuing education sessions, (ii) adopting rules, (iii) holding examinations, (iv) holding hearings, (v) submitting recommendations to the Director, (vi) grading all tests and examinations, (vii) performing other duties, and (viii) conferring with the Water Well and Pump Installation Contractors Licensing Board. Amends the Illinois Water Well Construction Code. Provides that the Department shall by rule require a one-time fee for permits for the construction, modification, or abandonment of closed loop well. Provides that all closed loop contractors shall be certified by the Department. Provides that all closed loop contractors who are certified may not engage in the occupation of closed loop well contractor unless he or she is registered with the Department. (Current Status: Sent To Governor)

HB 1657 – Rep. Bellock/Sen. Althoff - Adds an Illinois congressional delegation member, or his or her designee, to be appointed by the Governor to the Task Force on the Conservation and Quality of the Great Lakes. Provides that no later than June 1 of each year, the Task Force shall submit a report to the General Assembly outlining its recommendations concerning legislative actions to protect the water quality and supply of the Great Lakes. (Current Status: Sent To Governor)

HB 2056 – Rep. Osmond/Sen. Schmidt - Excludes from the definition of "pollution control facility" the portion of a site or facility used to incinerate only pharmaceuticals from residential sources that are in the possession or control of a law enforcement agency. Authorizes a law enforcement agency to collect pharmaceuticals from residential sources and to incinerate the collected pharmaceuticals in a manner that is consistent with rules adopted by the Agency. Authorizes the Department of State Police to use moneys in the Household Pharmaceutical Disposal Fund to make grants to local law enforcement agencies for the purpose of facilitating the collection and incineration of pharmaceuticals from residential sources. Defines "law enforcement agency". Amends the Unified Code of Corrections. Requires a $20 assessment to be levied against persons who commit specified drug offenses. Authorizes the Circuit Clerk to retain 5% of the penalties collected. Provides that a law enforcement agency may collect pharmaceuticals from residential sources and transport those pharmaceuticals to an incinerator permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency to be incinerated in accordance with the permit, permit conditions, the Act, and rules adopted under the Act. (Current Status: Sent To Governor)

HB 3090 – Rep. Arroyo/Sen. Delgado - Provides that any city, village, or municipality may authorize the use of its city hall or police department to display a container suitable for use as a receptacle for used, expired, or unwanted pharmaceuticals. Provides that the used, expired, or unwanted pharmaceuticals may include unused medication and prescription drugs. Provides that the receptacle shall only permit the deposit of items, and the contents shall be locked and secured. Provides that the container shall be accessible to the public and shall have posted clearly legible signage indicating that expired or unwanted prescription drugs may be disposed of in the receptacle. (Current Status: Sent To Governor)

Legislative Update - June 1 - 2011

A Done Deal

In the end, the expected fireworks never materialized as the House and Senate agreed this week to use the House’s lower revenue estimate of $33.2 billion to fashion the FY2012 state budget. The Senate had approved a budget that was approximately $1.2 billion higher than the House earlier in the month and observers were waiting for the gloves to come off and the budget battle royal, expecting that both chambers would dig in on their own budget versions. On Monday the Senate, generally agreed to the lower House spending level and sent that version of the budget to the Governor.

That’s not to mean that all Senators were happy, however. A few Democrats were downright apoplectic over that decision, and to try to assuage them the Senate added $430 million in spending to a capital projects authorization bill and sent it over to the House for consideration. But the House didn’t bite and moved to reject the amendment before adjourning. By doing so the bill, HB 2189, is in a position to be eventually sent to a conference committee, most probably in the fall, so that possible negotiations can take place and/or budget corrections or changes may take place.

Legislation was also sent to the Governor extending the lapse period from August 31 to December 31. Services must be performed prior to June 30 and vouchers for payment must be submitted no later than August 31. It also appears that the provisions of last year’s Emergency Budget Act that gave the Governor extraordinary budget powers, such as inter-fund borrowing and emergency rulemaking, will disappear on June 30.

As has been mentioned previously, this year the budget negotiations have been member-driven, the legislative leadership having provided members with an opportunity to assist in uprighting the state’s fiscal ship. While there is a great disappointment regarding the severe lack of funds, and even the adoption of a lower spending ceiling than was probably necessary, there is no question that the members rose to the occasion and created a budget document that, within limited fiscal constraints, actually tried to respond as well as possible to requests and concerns of advocacy groups and the public.

The reality of the situation was that the legislature was forced to approve a budget by May 31 and adjourn. State coffers have been below empty for the last few years and legislators realized that the time of reckoning had arrived. Punting, as has been the case over the last decade and a half, has been erased from the rulebook. Many difficult budget and funding decisions had to be made, and kicking them over past May 31, thereby requiring an even higher number of votes to enact the budget would have made an impossible situation even worse, with no telling what the consequences may have been.

One of the more interesting aspects of the budget deliberations this year was the cooperation seen in the House as both Democratic and Republican members joined together to make spending decisions. By doing so they provided cover for each other to justify funding levels that were not going to make anyone happy. Senate budget activity was a stark contrast. Democrats moved their budget ideas forward while Republicans complained about spending being too high. During an early press conference GOP Senators offered a plan to reduce state spending by $5 billion but never attempted to officially offer budget amendments to have aspects of their plan considered. When Senate Democrats actually had a few of the GOP budget cutting proposals drafted and submitted, Republicans didn’t exactly embrace them. So it goes it the game of posturing.

Governor Quinn has had minimal input in crafting the budget that was sent to him, in stark contrast to the way state budgets have been crafted for the last 30+ years. He now will have to decide whether he wants to sign, veto or change what the legislature sent him. Since the Constitution allows him only the right to reduce line items, it’s improbable that he’ll do that … since he wanted $2 billion more in authorization than the legislature sent him. If he vetoes the budget he can no doubt guarantee that he’ll get even less when a “rebound budget” gets to him. So, the odds are high that he’ll take what he’s been given and make the best of it.

Spoil(s) of Victory

The old adage, “to the victor go the spoils” used to be far more meaningful in days past than it is today. Court rulings restricting governmental personnel hiring (“Shakman”, “Rutan”) have hindered the opportunity for utilization of the spoils by office holders over the last 30-35 years, and other statutory limitations have hindered the free exercise of “spoilage” even further. So what’s one of the last huge spoils that remain unfettered in Illinois? Reapportionment. And that once every ten year exercise in constitutional compliance was on full display at the State Capitol over the last two weeks.

One party, Democrats, controlled the entire process for the first time since the adoption of the 1970 Constitution. Previous remap efforts in 1981, 1991 and 2001 were resolved after invoking the tie-breaking procedure enumerated in the Illinois Constitution and, as such, resulted in maps drawn by a commission long after the legislature adjourned. Were those maps partisan? Extremely. Democrats in 1981 and 2001, and Republicans in 1991, took full advantage of their control of the cartographer’s pen and tried to ensure their own legislative majorities for that upcoming decade while heaping a world of hurt on some individual members of the other party. 2011 has proved to be no different.

After months of reviewing new census data Democrats released their new state Senate maps on May 19 and the map of new House districts a day later. Hearings were held on subsequent days with Democrats claiming the new district alignment was “fair” and drawn “in accordance with all legal requirements” while Republicans wailed that, in their eyes, the new districts were “reprehensible”, “punitive” and an outrage. Nevertheless, the bill creating the new districts was rolled out of the House Redistricting Committee on a partisan roll call and moved to the House and then to the Senate where it was passed over vehement GOP opposition. The Governor has said that he will review the map before he acts on it to make sure it’s fair. Anyone who thinks that the Democratic legislature didn’t clear the map with Quinn before they passed it is kidding themselves.

The Constitution says that the map has to be signed into law by June 30. Any changes made by the Governor post May 31 would require a three-fifths vote to be effective immediately … and that would mean Republican votes would be needed. And they’re not voting for anything that would ostensibly make them the minority party for ten years. So will Quinn sign it? If by some long shot he doesn’t, and forces the commission procedure to be invoked, thereby possibly cooking the Democrat’s golden goose, he’ll be persona non grata with the legislature for the rest of his term of office. And he’s in bad enough repute now. So, expect the Governor to “join the team” and sign the map.

There is no doubt that the new map will cause some dislocation, particularly among Republicans. To create more desirable Democratic districts some of the others include two or three GOP legislators housed in the same district that may cause primary election contests between them, or perhaps some semi-forced retirements. Some other Republican legislators found their houses places in completely new territory, and to run in their former areas would have to move. (The Illinois Constitution allows legislators in the post-remap election to run in any territory that is created out of any portion of their former districts. The kicker is that if they choose to run from an area that they don’t live in they have to move into that new area no later than May 1 following the election … a very tough choice that has prompted many retirements rather than uprooting families.)

So, what’s next? The losing side always files suit, and almost always loses. The Illinois Constitution says that the Illinois Supreme Court has “original and exclusive jurisdiction” so any lawsuits will start and end there. Democrats have a 4-3 majority on the Court and presumably would uphold a Democratic map … on legal grounds, of course. But it also provides an interesting example of “what if?” had the intense effort to unseat Democratic Justice Thomas L. Kilbride been successful last November, thereby having given the GOP a majority on the court.

Most certainly suits will also be filed in federal court, but unless there are egregious violations of the Federal Voting Rights Act or other legal precedents they are not expected to get very far. So, for all intents and purposes, what we currently see is what we get.

Illinois is losing one congressional seat, and the congressional maps that Democrats approved took that into account … and then some. There was apparent pressure on state Democrats from Washington to try to embellish the numbers as much as possible. And they may have succeeded. If the prognostications hold, the state congressional delegation will shift from marginally Republican to heavily Democratic. Most, if not all, of the newly elected GOP congressman may be on jeopardy. It’s not surprising, then, to hear the loud complaints from Republicans about unfairness and undoing the results of the recent election. Lawsuits will certainly be filed, but the prospect of court intervention in dim. In 1991, Democrats in charge of the Texas legislature drew their congressional maps. After the 1994 Republican landslide gave Republicans control of Texas state government, then-Congressman Tom DeLay convinced the Texas legislature to “remap the remap”, and they did and in doing so completely reversed the actions that had taken place just a few years earlier. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in their favor so the new Illinois congressional maps might be looked upon as child’s play compared to Texas.

In all cases, legislative and congressional members will be elected from these new areas in November, 2012. Current districts will stay in effect until then.

Bonding Plan Hits The Skids

After numerous discussions and attempts to focus on the need for borrowing to pay arrearages to state vendors, there was one final try over last weekend to force the legislature to take action. Initial estimates from the Governor early in the year suggested that $8.7 billion would be necessary pay backlogs. Later in the session that number was pegged at $4.5 million. Over the weekend the Senate introduced four amendments that, if approved, would have allocated $6.2 billion on bonding authority. After the first of the four amendments was defeated soundly the remainder were never called.

To attempt to show the need, sponsors divvied up the amounts on the amendments to show the need to assist various categories of vendors or providers. $1.5 billion was allocated to private vendors, $1.1 billion for state medical plan expenses, $2.8 billion to governmental entities, and $800 million for corporate tax refunds. That strategy failed.

While a number of legislators and others objected to adding to state debt, under current law the state is required to pay between 12% and 24% for late payments to state vendors and providers. Interest payments on bonds would be between 4% and 6%, so replacing the former with the latter could potentially saving the state millions of dollars. The legislature did approve legislation reducing the prompt pay penalty to 1% per month, or 12% annually but passed on the chance to give state vendors and providers some relief, as well as freeing up a few more precious dollars for purposes other than interest payments.

Pension Reform On Hold

Legislators can be very forceful and full of bluster when speaking in the abstract and in generalities, like balancing the state budget or enacting pension reform. But get down to specifics with some heavy constituent pressure thrown in and it’s often a different story. That’s exactly what happened with efforts to enact pension options for many current governmental employees.

Post election comments from many legislators on both sides of the aisle were replete with demands and suggestions that more pension reform was absolutely necessary. Legislation was prepared to allow current employees two options other than their current retirement benefit, along with some increases in employee contributions. House committee hearings were scheduled in May to consider and adopt the revised plan, and then all hell broke loose.

All last week large numbers of phone calls, the likes of which have been seldom seen in the state capitol, jammed legislative offices. Thousands of these calls, as well as messages and e-mails, certainly caught the attention of members of the General Assembly and the leadership. Suddenly, the bluster seemed to evaporate into thin air, replaced by some concern about whether or not supporting such a plan might potentially cause election problems. As a result of the intense lobbying effort, legislative leaders decided to shelve discussion of further reform until the fall, at the earliest. The same for efforts to force current governmental retirees to pay a portion of health care premiums.

It’s a guarantee that if any such plans were to be approved it would be challenged immediately in court. Legal scholars vary as to the meaning of the provision in the Illinois Constitution that treats pensions as a contract, but a vast majority of them seem to be of the opinion that courts would not approve.

Casino/Racino Supporters Hit The Jackpot

An estimated $1.5 billion in upfront license fees and hundreds of millions of dollars per year in annual gaming taxes will be realized by the state as the General Assembly approved the largest expansion of gaming in the last 20 years. If approved by the Governor, new casinos would be earmarked for Chicago, Park City (Waukegan area), south suburban Cook County, Rockford and Danville. In addition, state horse racing tracks would be permitted to have a specified number of slot machines during their racing meets, and gambling spaces at current casinos would be expanded.

The big conundrum for Governor Quinn will be whether to sign the bill or not. He has stated in the past that while he supported a casino for Chicago he opposed over aggressive gambling expansion. With the failed efforts to try to pass gaming expansion in the past, he also probably thought he’d never have to worry about it. He does now. And can he realistically pass up all that cash with the immense stack of unpaid bills that loom? That’s the $64,000 question.

Illinois Health Benefits Exchange

Prior to adjournment the legislature approved SB 1555 that creates the Illinois Health Benefits Exchange Law in accordance with the federal Affordable Care Act beginning in October, 2013. The purpose of the Exchange is to help individuals and small employers with no more than 50 employees shop for, select, and enroll in qualified, affordable private health plans.

To help prepare for 2013 the legislation describes the functions of the Department of Insurance, the Commission on Governmental Forecasting and Accountability. It also creates a Health Benefits Exchange Legislative Study Committee that issue a report no later than September 30, 2011 with recommendations on the Exchange’s structure, sustainability and stakeholder involvement.

Prescription Drug Disposal

House Bill 2056 that allows law enforcement agencies to collect and incinerate pharmaceuticals from residential sources and incinerate them in accordance with rules to be established by the EPA, was sent to the Governor for his consideration.

Legislative Appointments

Rep. Dena M. Carli has been appointed to take the place of Rep. Susana Mendoza who was elected Chicago City Clerk.

Veto Session

The dates of the veto session have been announced. The General Assembly will meet on October 25, 26, 27 and November 8,9,10.

Bills of Interest

Any bills that did not pass will be removed from subsequent reports.

HB 248 – Rep. May - Amends the North Shore Sanitary District Act. Authorizes the board of trustees of a sanitary district to enter into an agreement to sell, convey, or disburse treated wastewater with any public or private entity located within or outside of the boundaries of the sanitary district. (Current Status: Passed Both Houses)

HB 308 – Rep. Tryon/Sen. Link - Provides that beginning January 1, 2012, the Department of Public Health shall issue permits for the construction and modification of closed loop well systems. Provides for the certification and registration of closed loop contractors by the Department. Amends the Water Well and Pump Installation Contractor's License Act to make a technical and a related change. (Current Status: Passed Both Houses)

HB 1585 – Rep. Sente - Provides that "plumbing" includes rainwater harvesting distribution systems, but does not include any rainwater harvesting distribution system or rainwater harvesting collection system unless otherwise required by the Illinois Plumbing Code. Requires the Illinois Department of Public Health to adopt and publish a minimum code of standards for rainwater harvesting collection systems and rainwater harvesting distribution systems by January 1, 2012. Requires rainwater harvesting collection systems and rainwater harvesting distribution systems to be (A) used only for non-potable uses and (B) constructed in accordance with the Illinois Plumbing Code. Defines "rainwater harvesting collection system" and "rainwater harvesting distribution system". (Current Status: Re-referred to Rules Committee - dead)

HB 1657 – Rep. Bellock/Sen. Althoff - Adds an Illinois congressional delegation member, or his or her designee, to be appointed by the Governor to the Task Force on the Conservation and Quality of the Great Lakes. Provides that no later than June 1 of each year, the Task Force shall submit a report to the General Assembly outlining its recommendations concerning legislative actions to protect the water quality and supply of the Great Lakes. (Current Status: Passed Both Houses)

HB 1660- Rep. Bellock - Creates the Prescription Drug Repository Program Act. Requires the Department of Public Health to establish a prescription drug repository program, under which a healthcare facility may donate a prescription drug or supplies needed to administer a prescription drug for use by an individual who meets eligibility criteria specified by the Department. Sets forth requirements that prescription drugs or supplies must meet in order to be accepted and dispensed under the program. Provides that no drugs or supplies donated under the prescription drug repository program may be resold. Provides that nothing in the Act requires that a pharmacy or pharmacist participate in the prescription drug repository program. Provides for civil and criminal immunity for drug and supply manufacturers and pharmacists in relation to the donation, acceptance, or dispensing of prescription drugs or supplies under the prescription drug repository program. (Current Status: Re-referred to Rules Committee – dead)

HB 1704 – Rep. Bradley - . Provides that NPDES permit applications are deemed approved if not approved or denied by the Environmental Protection Agency within 120 days after being filed with the Agency. (Current Status: Re-referred to Rules Committee – dead)

HB 1955 – Rep. Holbrook - Provides an alternative procedure that a large public utility may choose in establishing the ratemaking rate base of a water or sewer utility that the large public utility is acquiring. Provides that the Commission's order that approves the large public utility's acquisition of the water or sewer utility shall include the Commission's decision establishing (1) the ratemaking rate base of the water or sewer utility and (2) the district or tariff group with which the water or sewer utility will be combined for ratemaking purposes. (Current Status: Re-referred to Rules Committee – dead)

HB 2056 – Rep. Osmond/Sen. Schmidt - Excludes from the definition of "pollution control facility" the portion of a site or facility used to incinerate only pharmaceuticals from residential sources that are in the possession or control of a law enforcement agency. Authorizes a law enforcement agency to collect pharmaceuticals from residential sources and to incinerate the collected pharmaceuticals in a manner that is consistent with rules adopted by the Agency. Authorizes the Department of State Police to use moneys in the Household Pharmaceutical Disposal Fund to make grants to local law enforcement agencies for the purpose of facilitating the collection and incineration of pharmaceuticals from residential sources. Defines "law enforcement agency". Amends the Unified Code of Corrections. Requires a $20 assessment to be levied against persons who commit specified drug offenses. (Current Status: Passed Both Houses)

HB 2879 – Rep. Davis - Provides that inspection fees for all commercial fertilizers and custom mixes shall be $1 per ton (up from 25¢ per ton). Provides that seven-eighths (up from one-half) of the $1 per ton inspection fee shall be paid into the Fertilizer Control Fund. Provides that not less than 50% of the funds appropriated to the fertilizer research and education program shall be used for projects designed to avoid or reduce water pollution that may arise from the use of fertilizer in agriculture. Increases the Fertilizer Research and Education Council members to 15 (up from 9) and provides qualifications for the additional members. (Current Status: Re-referred to Rules Committee – dead)

HB 3090 – Rep. Arroyo/Sen. Delgado - Provides that notwithstanding any provision of law, any person who is authorized to dispense prescription drugs in the State must accept, free of charge, expired or unwanted prescription drugs for proper disposal. Provides that the prescription drug dispenser shall make available to its customers or patients a container suitable for use as a receptacle that only permits for the deposit of items and the contents of which are locked and secured for the expired or unwanted prescription drugs. Provides that if a patient or customer is issued a prescription drug from a person who is authorized to dispense prescription drugs in the State and that prescription drug causes an adverse reaction and the patient or customer returns the remainder of the prescription drug to the dispenser, then the dispenser shall refund the full cost of the prescription drug to the patient or customer. (Current Status: Passed Both Houses)

HB 3099 – Rep. Tryon - Requires the rules of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Illinois Pollution Control Board to include a process for expediting the issuance of permits and licenses for all projects requiring permitting or licensure. Authorizes the Agency and the Board to engage the experts and additional resources that are reasonably necessary for implementing this process. Specifies that an expedited process applies only upon the request of the applicant and that any additional costs for using the process are to be borne by the applicant. (Current Status: Re-referred to Rules Committee – dead)

SB 38 – Sen. Garrett/Rep. Sente - Provides that "plumbing" includes rainwater harvesting distribution systems, but does not include any rainwater harvesting distribution system or rainwater harvesting collection system unless otherwise required by the Illinois Plumbing Code. Requires the Illinois Department of Public Health to adopt and publish a minimum code of standards for rainwater harvesting collection systems and rainwater harvesting distribution systems by January 1, 2012. Requires rainwater harvesting collection systems and rainwater harvesting distribution systems to be (A) used only for non-potable uses and (B) constructed in accordance with the Illinois Plumbing Code. Defines "rainwater harvesting collection system" and "rainwater harvesting distribution system". (Current Status: Passed Senate; House – Executive Committee - dead)

SB 1222- Sen. J. Sullivan - Provides that any public water district organized under the Public Water District Act is authorized to construct, maintain, alter, and extend its water main along, upon, under, and across any highway, street, alley, or public ground in the State. (Current Status: Re-referred to Committee on Assignments - dead)

SB 1682 – Sen. Link/Rep. Tryon - Requires the Illinois Department of Public Health, by January 1, 2012, to (i) establish standards for the certification and licensing of individuals and contractors constructing and modifying closed loop wells and (ii) issue permits for the construction and modification of closed loop wells. (Current Status: Passed Senate; House Consideration Postponed - dead)

SB 1903 – Sen. Clayborne - Provides that NPDES permit applications are deemed approved if not approved or denied by the Environmental Protection Agency within 120 days after being filed with the Agency. (Current Status: Senate – 2^nd Reading - dead)

SB 1981 – Sen. Garrett - Authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to disburse grants from the Illinois Clean Water Fund to other State agencies, local governments, publicly owned entities subject to NPDES permitting requirements, and charitable organizations for the purposes of reducing water pollution and protecting surface and ground water quality and aquatic habitats. Authorizes the Agency to adopt rules to administer this grant program. (Current Status: Re-referred to Committee on Assignments - dead)

ISAWWA Legislative Report 10/31/10

And The Winner Is …. ?

After all the months political debates, charges, countercharges, and millions of dollars spent on television, radio and mail to convince voters that their opponents are worse than they are, Election 2010 will mercifully draw to a close in two days. By the end of the day on November 2 we should have some idea as to what the next two years, and possibly the next decade, hold politically and governmentally in the state of Illinois.

Democrats want to keep the governor’s office and majorities in the legislature so they can control state policy for the next two years, but also draw the reapportionment map that could put them in legislative control for the next ten. Republicans, on the other hand, feel emboldened and have put on a full frontal assault hoping to capture the governor’s office and possibly into a majority in the House. Either one would give them a 50/50 chance to control the reapportionment process that will begin in the spring.

With literally hours to go in the governor’s race it appears that the race is in a virtual dead heat. The number of targeted legislative races has expanded over the last few weeks so there are as many as 30 house districts being contested along with a dozen or so senate seats. The contested legislative seats are not focused in any one area so observers are going to have to wait for local returns from almost every area of the state. That should make for a long night on Tuesday as results trickle in.

The magic numbers for Tuesday night are 60 and 30. Those are the numbers that a party will need to control each of the legislative chambers. Sixty members of one party control the House and 30 control the Senate. Will Democrats be able to withstand the expected GOP/Tea Party onslaught? Have they been able to create a game plan that will offer different result than in 1994 when Republicans ran the table and captured every state office and control of the legislature? What happens if there is a 59-59 tie in the House? (Quick answer: Very ugly and gridlocked paralysis for two years.) Tune in Tuesday night …

For those who wish to follow the status of the legislative elections during Tuesday night, you might try www.capitalfaxblog. They may have compiled reports from the field that will provide the status of many legislative races, and all in one place.

Lame Ducks

Prior to every post-election season legislative session speculation abounds regarding major policy enactments by the General Assembly with lame duck legislators providing the necessary votes. In reality, such major policy decisions seldom occur.

Lame ducks can be classified in two categories: 1) Retired/defeated and committed, and 2) Retired/defeated and uncommitted.

The first category is comprised of legislators who feel a deep affinity for the legislative process and who feel that it is their responsibility to participate fully in the process until the final session gavel comes down. Most soon-to-be former legislators fit into this category. The second category is generally comprised of a few who may have retired because they looked upon the process as a burden or who are angry because they were “rejected” by their constituents in their reelection efforts. Their commitment to seeing the process through to the end is questionable.

Putting together the votes for a major initiative in the yearly veto session requires an extraordinary number of votes for it to be effective immediately. Generally, committed legislators who will not be returning, by and large, stay true to their philosophies and generally will not cross over and breach their principles. Additionally, some in this category may have plans to run for office again so it is even more unlikely that they will cast an odd vote. On the other hand, the few uncommitted legislators may not even be counted on to be in Springfield during post-election session days, let alone counting on a vote or convincing them to vote on a major piece of legislation.

What all this suggests is that putting together a successful roll call to enact a major initiative, such as a tax increase, is not an easy task. Can it happen? Surely. However, it’s never easy as the lack of such successful efforts in the past can attest.


Disorder in the Court?

One of the important results to watch on election night will be the effort to unseat Supreme Court Justice Thomas Kilbride. Democrats currently hold and traditionally have held a 4-3 majority on the Illinois Supreme Court. In the past the four Democratic votes have come from the three Cook County justices along with the justice elected from southern Illinois. In the past ten years two upsets have occurred that skewed this formula. In 2004 a Republican, Lloyd Karmeier, was elected from the southern Illinois district and in 2000 Democrat Thomas Kilbride was elected from the normally Republican 3rd District that stretches from Will County to Rock Island. Illinois supreme court justices serve for ten years and then appear on a retention ballot. They must receive 60 percent approval to be retained. It’s Justice Kilbride’s turn at bat in 2010 and it’s been a battle royale.

Why? The simple answer is caps on malpractice awards. Twice in the last forty years the legislature has approved malpractice award caps and twice, most recently last February, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled those caps unconstitutional with a four-vote majority. Change one vote and the possibility of major policy change in Illinois becomes possible. Enter Kilbride and his retention effort. The pro-caps, anti-Kilbride groups are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to deny him retention and have been brutal in their representation of his record. Kilbride has countered by presenting testimonials from a bipartisan broad cross-section of prominent persons touting his record. Remember that judicial elections aren’t generally issue-oriented -- judicial candidates are forbidden to be specific on how they would rule on specific issues or cases so races become focused more on background, values and trust.

A possible GOP Supreme Court majority also puts them in a position to rule on the state legislative reapportionment case when it arrives there, as it always does, sometime in mid-to-late 2011. The results in the gubernatorial and legislative races will be the first step in the remap process. The Illinois Supreme Court is the last, final and most important step, especially since they could discard any map presented to it and rule for another. That map will determine the legislative politics in Illinois for the next ten years. So keep an eye on this race Tuesday night. The impact could significantly impact the Illinois governmental and political landscape for years.

Who’s Next?

One of the major and sometimes overriding factors that determine the nature of the General Assembly’s fiscal and policy decisions is the city of Chicago, and the actions of its legislative delegation are very much dictated by leadership philosophy and the perceived needs of the person sitting in the mayor’s chair. In 2011 there may be a void in the direction that the city delegation is given due to the announced retirement of Mayor Richard M. Daley. Not only has his early retirement announcement created a scramble for the legion of mayors-in-waiting who wish to succeed him, but it may also create a rudderless legislative delegation searching for direction at a time when the state and city both are struggling financially.

According to the 2011 election calendar, mayoral candidates must file their petitions no later than November 22. Even though candidates will have a week to withdraw, and some will, it will provide a good glimpse of the expected large number of individuals who want to try to grab for this possible once-in-a-generation ‘brass ring’. The non-partisan primary election is scheduled to be held on February 22. If no candidate receives 50 percent then the top two will face off on April 5. The winner will take office on May 16 … while the General Assembly session adjournment date is May 31, only two weeks later.

If there is a sure winner on February 22 then there probably would be some consultation and coordination between the current and incoming administrations and the Chicago delegation. With the large number of candidates expected to run, however, it is widely expected that April 5 will be the date that the next mayor is elected. Not much time will remain for the new administration to get its priorities in order and its delegation marching in sync.

The needs and desires of the City of Chicago are not always the preeminent factor in legislative deliberation and they don’t always get what they want. But, like it or not, they are a very large delegation and a factor, and sometimes a very large factor, in determining the direction of the state and whoever is mayor helps to set that direction. In 2011, however, it may be one big delegation in search of a leader.


Veto Session (And Other) Dates Reminder

The Senate will be meeting on November 4 for the purpose of considering additional borrowing. It is not a “special session” but rather a session that was “recessed” when the legislature left Springfield in May. Therefore, the subject matter is not limited but it is not expected that anything out of the ordinary will take place.

The legislature is scheduled to meet the week before (November 16, 17, 18) and the week after (November 29, 30 and December 1) Thanksgiving to conduct its annual veto session. The governor vetoed or amendatory vetoed very little so there is some possibility that the number of session days may be cut. Of course, it also leaves time to act on other issues that may be outstanding.

Also expect at least a short legislative session in January. A governor will be sworn in on Monday, January 10. The legislature will probably meet that day and the next, wrapping up the current session before the new General Assembly is sworn into office on January 12. The January session days could be significant because as of January 1, the number of votes necessary to pass a bill and have it effective immediately drops from a three-fifths (36 Senate/71 House) to a simple majority (30/60).

L

And The Winner Is …. ?
After all the months political debates, charges, countercharges, and millions of dollars spent on television, radio and mail to convince voters that their opponents are worse than they are, Election 2010 will mercifully draw to a close in two days. By the end of the day on November 2 we should have some idea as to what the next two years, and possibly the next decade, hold politically and governmentally in the state of Illinois.

Democrats want to keep the governor’s office and majorities in the legislature so they can control state policy for the next two years, but also draw the reapportionment map that could put them in legislative control for the next ten. Republicans, on the other hand, feel emboldened and have put on a full frontal assault hoping to capture the governor’s office and possibly into a majority in the House. Either one would give them a 50/50 chance to control the reapportionment process that will begin in the spring.

With literally hours to go in the governor’s race it appears that the race is in a virtual dead heat. The number of targeted legislative races has expanded over the last few weeks so there are as many as 30 house districts being contested along with a dozen or so senate seats. The contested legislative seats are not focused in any one area so observers are going to have to wait for local returns from almost every area of the state. That should make for a long night on Tuesday as results trickle in.

The magic numbers for Tuesday night are 60 and 30. Those are the numbers that a party will need to control each of the legislative chambers. Sixty members of one party control the House and 30 control the Senate. Will Democrats be able to withstand the expected GOP/Tea Party onslaught? Have they been able to create a game plan that will offer different result than in 1994 when Republicans ran the table and captured every state office and control of the legislature? What happens if there is a 59-59 tie in the House? (Quick answer: Very ugly and gridlocked paralysis for two years.) Tune in Tuesday night …

For those who wish to follow the status of the legislative elections during Tuesday night, you might try www.capitalfaxblog. They may have compiled reports from the field that will provide the status of many legislative races, and all in one place.

Lame Ducks

Prior to every post-election season legislative session speculation abounds regarding major policy enactments by the General Assembly with lame duck legislators providing the necessary votes. In reality, such major policy decisions seldom occur.

Lame ducks can be classified in two categories: 1) Retired/defeated and committed, and 2) Retired/defeated and uncommitted.

The first category is comprised of legislators who feel a deep affinity for the legislative process and who feel that it is their responsibility to participate fully in the process until the final session gavel comes down. Most soon-to-be former legislators fit into this category. The second category is generally comprised of a few who may have retired because they looked upon the process as a burden or who are angry because they were “rejected” by their constituents in their reelection efforts. Their commitment to seeing the process through to the end is questionable.

Putting together the votes for a major initiative in the yearly veto session requires an extraordinary number of votes for it to be effective immediately. Generally, committed legislators who will not be returning, by and large, stay true to their philosophies and generally will not cross over and breach their principles. Additionally, some in this category may have plans to run for office again so it is even more unlikely that they will cast an odd vote. On the other hand, the few uncommitted legislators may not even be counted on to be in Springfield during post-election session days, let alone counting on a vote or convincing them to vote on a major piece of legislation.

What all this suggests is that putting together a successful roll call to enact a major initiative, such as a tax increase, is not an easy task. Can it happen? Surely. However, it’s never easy as the lack of such successful efforts in the past can attest.


Disorder in the Court?

One of the important results to watch on election night will be the effort to unseat Supreme Court Justice Thomas Kilbride. Democrats currently hold and traditionally have held a 4-3 majority on the Illinois Supreme Court. In the past the four Democratic votes have come from the three Cook County justices along with the justice elected from southern Illinois. In the past ten years two upsets have occurred that skewed this formula. In 2004 a Republican, Lloyd Karmeier, was elected from the southern Illinois district and in 2000 Democrat Thomas Kilbride was elected from the normally Republican 3rd District that stretches from Will County to Rock Island. Illinois supreme court justices serve for ten years and then appear on a retention ballot. They must receive 60 percent approval to be retained. It’s Justice Kilbride’s turn at bat in 2010 and it’s been a battle royale.

Why? The simple answer is caps on malpractice awards. Twice in the last forty years the legislature has approved malpractice award caps and twice, most recently last February, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled those caps unconstitutional with a four-vote majority. Change one vote and the possibility of major policy change in Illinois becomes possible. Enter Kilbride and his retention effort. The pro-caps, anti-Kilbride groups are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to deny him retention and have been brutal in their representation of his record. Kilbride has countered by presenting testimonials from a bipartisan broad cross-section of prominent persons touting his record. Remember that judicial elections aren’t generally issue-oriented -- judicial candidates are forbidden to be specific on how they would rule on specific issues or cases so races become focused more on background, values and trust.

A possible GOP Supreme Court majority also puts them in a position to rule on the state legislative reapportionment case when it arrives there, as it always does, sometime in mid-to-late 2011. The results in the gubernatorial and legislative races will be the first step in the remap process. The Illinois Supreme Court is the last, final and most important step, especially since they could discard any map presented to it and rule for another. That map will determine the legislative politics in Illinois for the next ten years. So keep an eye on this race Tuesday night. The impact could significantly impact the Illinois governmental and political landscape for years.

Who’s Next?

One of the major and sometimes overriding factors that determine the nature of the General Assembly’s fiscal and policy decisions is the city of Chicago, and the actions of its legislative delegation are very much dictated by leadership philosophy and the perceived needs of the person sitting in the mayor’s chair. In 2011 there may be a void in the direction that the city delegation is given due to the announced retirement of Mayor Richard M. Daley. Not only has his early retirement announcement created a scramble for the legion of mayors-in-waiting who wish to succeed him, but it may also create a rudderless legislative delegation searching for direction at a time when the state and city both are struggling financially.

According to the 2011 election calendar, mayoral candidates must file their petitions no later than November 22. Even though candidates will have a week to withdraw, and some will, it will provide a good glimpse of the expected large number of individuals who want to try to grab for this possible once-in-a-generation ‘brass ring’. The non-partisan primary election is scheduled to be held on February 22. If no candidate receives 50 percent then the top two will face off on April 5. The winner will take office on May 16 … while the General Assembly session adjournment date is May 31, only two weeks later.

If there is a sure winner on February 22 then there probably would be some consultation and coordination between the current and incoming administrations and the Chicago delegation. With the large number of candidates expected to run, however, it is widely expected that April 5 will be the date that the next mayor is elected. Not much time will remain for the new administration to get its priorities in order and its delegation marching in sync.

The needs and desires of the City of Chicago are not always the preeminent factor in legislative deliberation and they don’t always get what they want. But, like it or not, they are a very large delegation and a factor, and sometimes a very large factor, in determining the direction of the state and whoever is mayor helps to set that direction. In 2011, however, it may be one big delegation in search of a leader.


Veto Session (And Other) Dates Reminder

The Senate will be meeting on November 4 for the purpose of considering additional borrowing. It is not a “special session” but rather a session that was “recessed” when the legislature left Springfield in May. Therefore, the subject matter is not limited but it is not expected that anything out of the ordinary will take place.

The legislature is scheduled to meet the week before (November 16, 17, 18) and the week after (November 29, 30 and December 1) Thanksgiving to conduct its annual veto session. The governor vetoed or amendatory vetoed very little so there is some possibility that the number of session days may be cut. Of course, it also leaves time to act on other issues that may be outstanding.

Also expect at least a short legislative session in January. A governor will be sworn in on Monday, January 10. The legislature will probably meet that day and the next, wrapping up the current session before the new General Assembly is sworn into office on January 12. The January session days could be significant because as of January 1, the number of votes necessary to pass a bill and have it effective immediately drops from a three-fifths (36 Senate/71 House) to a simple majority (30/60).

URGENT: Stuxnet Worm - Impacts SCADA systems

Source:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9185919/Is_Stuxnet_the_best_malware_ever_

attachment

The Stuxnet worm is a "groundbreaking" piece of malware so devious in its use of unpatched vulnerabilities and so sophisticated in its multipronged approach that the security researchers who tore it apart believe it may be the work of state-backed professionals.

"It's amazing, really, the resources that went into this worm," said Liam O' Murchu, manager of operations with Symantec's security response team. "I'd call it groundbreaking," said Roel Schouwenberg, a senior antivirus researcher at Kaspersky Lab.

First reported in June by a little-known security firm based in Belarus, Stuxnet gained notoriety a month later when Microsoft confirmed that the worm was targeting Windows PCs that managed SCADA systems. At the time, researchers believed that Stuxnet exploited just one un-patched (zero-day) vulnerability in Windows and spread through infected USB flash drives.

Iran was hardest hit by Stuxnet, according to Symantec researchers, who said in July that nearly 60% of all infected PCs were located in that country.

On August 2, Microsoft issued an emergency update to patch the bug that Stuxnet was then known to exploit in Windows shortcuts. But unbeknownst to Microsoft, Stuxnet could actually use three other zero-day vulnerabilities to gain access to corporate networks. Once it had access, it would seek out and infect the specific machines that managed SCADA systems controlled by Siemens software. But the Stuxnet wonders didn't stop there. The worm also exploited a Windows bug patched in 2008 - the same vulnerability used to devastating effect by the Conficker worm in late 2008 and early 2009 - to infect millions of machines.

Once within a network - initially delivered via an infected USB device - Stuxnet used the ulnerabilities to commandeer any connected SCADA software. The attack code seemed legitimate because Stuxnet contains at least two signed digital certificates. "The organization and sophistication to execute the entire package is extremely impressive," said Schouwenberg. "Whoever is behind this was on a mission to get into whatever company or companies they were targeting."

So scary, so thorough was the reconnaissance, so complex the job, so sneaky the attack, that neither believe it could be the work even of an advanced cyber crime gang. "They weren't just after information, so a competitor is out. They wanted to reprogram the PLCs and operate the machinery," O' Murchu said.

And the fact that Iran was the main target is significant. "All the different circumstances, from the multiple zero-days to stolen certificates to istribution, the most plausible scenario is a nation-state-backed group," said Schouwenberg, who acknowledged that some people might think he was wearing a tin foil hat when he says such things. "This sounds like something out of a movie, but I would argue it's plausible, suddenly plausible, that it was nation-state-backed."