* The Senate really doesn’t have a good reason to keep this session closed to the public…
The Illinois Senate plans to meet behind closed doors this morning to hear a presentation by experts about state budgets and the national economy, a move that open government advocates called baffling.
The unusual secret gathering is being billed as a “joint caucus” of the majority Democrats and the minority Republicans, two groups that represent the entire 59 members of the Illinois Senate. The caucuses routinely meet separately to plot partisan strategy, and the public is not invited. But a joint meeting is very rare.
The spokeswoman for Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, said the event will be closed because the presentation to be given by the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures will not fall under the state Constitution’s requirements to be open.
It won’t violate the Constitution? Really? From the Constitution…
Sessions of each house of the General Assembly and meetings of committees, joint committees and legislative commissions shall be open to the public. Sessions and committee meetings of a house may be closed to the public if two-thirds of the members elected to that house determine that the public interest so requires
And if you read the Senate’s rules, the term “caucus” is solely used to define political party membership. They don’t really have a leg to stand on here.
This is a good point as well…
“Setting aside the legal issues, I can’t imagine what the NCSL is going to say that’s so top secret that the general public will not be allowed to hear it,” Morrison said.
Exactly.
Heck, I even obtained the PowerPoint presentation that the NCSL person will use at today’s meeting…
* Part 1
* Part 2
The scariest graph is probably in Part 1. Click the pic for a better look…
I think that may be too optimistic. Our own state’s deficit is projected at $13 billion in Fiscal Year 2011, which would be about a quarter of the NCSL’s projected all-states deficit of $55.5 billion - although only 30 states provided data for the year in question, as compared to 35 for the current FY.
* Related…
* Groups to Rally in Springfield for Budget
* Community Colleges: More Borrowing Power Please
* Educators huddle on state funding freeze
* Des Plaines casino plans clear another hurdle
* $100 million could help unclog rail delays
* Is Chicago throwing away $40 million?: Chicago is turning its back on $40 million in guaranteed revenue over the next 10 years — and 25,000 free trash/recycling bins — by ignoring an Aurora company’s offer to install “Free Green Cans” bearing advertising across the city.
*** UPDATE *** Senate President John Cullerton tries to explain the joint caucus idea…
“I talked to the Senate President of Texas, a Republican, and he told me about this idea of having joint caucuses. I said we have individual caucuses. He said we have a really bipartisan Senate. We have people who really get along. I said we’re trying to improve that. We didn’t have a very good atmosphere in Springfield. So, that’s why we started last year with a dinner, a social gathering with all the Senators, this year the staff, that you guys wanted to come to. It was meant to be like a Christmas party for the office.
“The idea for having a caucus like this, this is a joint caucus, just like a caucus that we have, that we call on the floor. But this is meant to be one where just the senators are there to get information, but where they can also feel like they can ask questions and have a free exchange of ideas without having to be worried about what the press might report.”
“Now you’ve got five people in there running for higher office. Two governors, a county board president, a congressman – they want to have their thoughts and comments about this material without them having to worry about what’s going to be reported or looked at in their campaign. OK? So none of this stuff that’s going to be reported is secret, as a matter of fact I want you all to see it.”
“I know you guys are trying to show that we’re all bad down here and we’re secret and we’re trying to do things in a bad way, I just find it ironic that, yeah, you’re right we’ve never done it before. I’m proud of it, because we’re trying to bring people together socially and in a working atmosphere. We’re not trying to keep the media out of our business. You can ask anybody you want to afterward what they think, what the materials were. We’re going to have a press conference.”
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:15 am:
According to a recent News Hour report, only two states DON’T have budget gaps this year: South Dakota and Wyoming, which rely on huge mining rights to fund state government.
- Leroy - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:21 am:
Perhaps the Illinois voters aren’t quite ready for the truth yet?
It is an election year, you know.
- David Starrett - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:30 am:
This “closed joint caucus” stuff is patently illegal, and that was my first reaction last week when I heard that such a thing might be in the offing.
If they’re permitted to get-away with it this time, the precedent will be a killer later.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:35 am:
3.
–If they’re permitted to get-away with it this time, the precedent will be a killer later.–
Excellent point. I hope some reporters and/or citizens in Springfield crash the party.
What a goofy idea. What’s the point?
- Dooley Dudright - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:39 am:
Closed session? Ugly!
Simple solution: have NCSL make two presentations — one to each caucus!
- lake county democrat - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:41 am:
Time to change the Illinois constitution to “whatever Mike says” — it’ll make life easier.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:42 am:
lcd, this is a closed Senate session, not a closed House session.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:42 am:
A secret session, closed to the public, in order to discuss reality?
Who do these people think elected them and whose money do they think they are discussing? There is a real reason this is illegal. Not only illegal, but does nothing to help patch up the anger and cynicism Illinoisans feel towards the GA, and this kind of undemocratic atmosphere.
We all know it is an election year, and these guys want to return to their offices next year. We all know we are up a very fecal-filled natural stream of water smaller than a river in a buoyant vessel without adequate propulsion or steerage.
Handling this situation, in this manner, is the very reason why these people need to be given a very hard kick to their nether regions out from under the Dome, and told never to return.
- Silly - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:44 am:
I agree its silly to close this session, but the Constitution does say 2/3 of the Senate can order a close session! If they take a vote and 36 members vote to close its session it would be legal, dumb but legal!
- RJW - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:48 am:
First of all, there is nothing that can be done about today’s close session so stop complaining about it. Maybe you can prevent future things like this but today is over. Second, I get tired of the press and others whining about “access.” You don’t have a right to have access to everything that is done nor should you. Sometimes people need to be able to talk openly and you are not going to accomplish that in front of everybody and their brother. Get over it and grow up.
- John Bambenek - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:48 am:
Yeah, but if they voted to close the session, then you’d have something their opponents can use against them in November.
Better to just call it a “caucus” meeting and then blame the amorphous leaders and continue shroom-like behavior.
Pingback UPDATED: State Senate “Bi-partisan Caucus” to Get Around Open Meetings Act | Illinois Alliance For Growth - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:49 am:
[…] Update: Oh… I spoke too soon. It’s unconstitutional as well. Rich Miller at Capfax has more. […]
- Greg B. - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:52 am:
Somehow I get the feeling that, “Stop spending,” won’t be the takeaway from the meeting.
Glad to see the lessons form the Blago era haven’t quite sunk in, yet.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:53 am:
===First of all, there is nothing that can be done about today’s close session so stop complaining about it.===
Who are you? Stalin? If you can’t stand complaints about what appears to be an unconstitutional meeting, then either grow up or leave. Thanks.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:54 am:
Who are you? Stalin?
LOL!
- John Bambenek - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:54 am:
Actually, violating the Open Meetings Act is a Class C misdemeanor… imagine the entire Illinois Senate having to do 30 days in the pokey.
(* - I actually have to verify that this violates OMA, but I can’t manage that there is an exception they could claim here)
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:55 am:
I think you nailed it earlier today in the Fax Rich: this is closed to prevent the public from hearing the questions our esteemed Senators might ask. It would be just awful to learn that some of these Senators are downright clueless when it comes to this stuff.
Still, while that’s an understandable reason, they could easily vote to keep it closed. I’m sure the ignorance is evenly spread between the two parties.
- Interested Observer - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:57 am:
And who enforces the violation?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:57 am:
JB, I think the GA is exempt from that law since they are supposedly covered in the Constitution - which they have just violated. lol
- Balance - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:57 am:
I believe the $13 billion number comes from Hynes and includes the total amount we will be in the hole coming out of FY 10 plus the anticipated overspending in FY 11.
The graph’s FY 11 number is just FY 11 totals.
- RJW - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:57 am:
All I’m saying is if you don’t like it then blocking future meetings is all you have. I also don’t believe it’s unconstitutional nor do I think the Supreme Court would either. This sort of stuff is open for interpretation and I think the Court would be unwilling to impede on the ability of the legislative branch of government on how it chooses to operate nor am I certain the General Assembly would abide by a Court ruling against them.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:59 am:
===All I’m saying is===
Yeah, right. OK. Your little Stalinist rant went far beyond your explanation.
- John Bambenek - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:59 am:
The problem with the Illinois Constitution is that it was designed to protect government from us pesky voters…
- Da Ship Be Sinking - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 10:59 am:
Cullerton has a brilliant legal staff…or maybe not.
- One of the 35 - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 11:00 am:
I’ll contribute 10 bucks towards filing charges of violating the Open Meetings Act against each and every GA member who attends the illegal session.
- The Doc - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 11:01 am:
Wouldn’t Democrats, most of whom at least tacitly acknowledge the need for a tax increase, want to have the cameras rolling for this presentation?
These are not data points being offered by the Heritage Foundation or the Brookings Institution. If either party is confident that their financial platform is realistic and necessary, what’s the rationale for shunning the public?
- RJW - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 11:04 am:
As you are fond of saying - bite me. Now I feel better and you can turn your nasty little attacks on someone else.
- hank - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 11:07 am:
This is Illinois, we don’t need no stinkin constitution!
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 11:11 am:
The NCSL briefing is a ruse. They’re actually being briefed on a daring new plan to cure the deficit.
Senate members plan to sabotage the Las Vegas power grid and rob four casinos simultaneously under the cover of darkness. Call it Cullerton’s 59.
In a world gone mad, it’s crazy enough that it just might work.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 11:12 am:
RJW, I think referring to you as a Stalinist might have been over the top. But if the shoe fits…
- RJW - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 11:16 am:
I know some former communists but am not quite there myself. . . have a good day Rich.
- moron - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 11:28 am:
Better to just call it a “caucus”…
a “caucus” is no more exempt from IL OMA than a “joint caucus”
from our OAG:
The Supreme Court of Illinois in People ex rel. Difanis v. Barr, 83 Ill. 2d 191, 201 (1980), in applying the Act to a “political caucus” of city council members, stated as follows:
“The statute states that ‘[a]ll meetings of any legislative, executive, administrative or advisory
bodies * * * and any subsidiary bodies of any of the foregoing including but not limited to
committees or subcommittees * * * shall be public meetings * * *.’ (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev.
Stat. 1977, ch. 102, par. 42.) We interpret the foregoing to mean that the Act was intended to
apply to more than meetings of full bodies or duly constituted committees. Thus, ‘body’ must
necessarily be interpreted to mean an informal gathering of nine members of a legally constituted
public body.”
http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/government/openmeet.pdf p. 14
- Don't Worry, Be Happy - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 11:31 am:
“without them having to worry about what’s going to be reported or looked at in their campaign. OK?”
Um, no, it’s not OK.
Stating it this way pretty much makes it worse. We take it for granted that the Senators are going to ask stupid questions that they don’t want the rest of us to know about, but if you’re running for Governor, County Board President or Congress, then everything you say regarding policy should be even more of an open book.
In fact, those four singled out by Cullerton should be the first to object. What does it say about a Brady Administration, for example, if he’s willing to go along with this craziness?
- moron - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 11:37 am:
Cullerton: “It was meant to be like a Christmas party for the office.”
you can’t eventually make a meeting exempt from IL OMA by making it more & more informal, Cullerton knows this
- moron - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 11:42 am:
and you can’t make a meeting exempt by not acting (voting) on anything, discussing public business is enough, and Cullerton knows this, too
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 11:48 am:
Cullerton’s explanation is ludicrous. Senators don’t want people to hear what they’re talking about. That’s the reason? Too bad.
Has this happened already? Did any senator come out against this?
- Bubs - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 11:55 am:
I can only respond with James Earl Jones’ famous line as he threatens Kevin Costner with a baseball bat in “Field of Dreams”:
“RULES? Oh, no, there are no RULES here.”
- Quiet Sage - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 12:30 pm:
This shows that the travesty of democracy in forcing Scott Lee Cohen off the ballot was not an isolated incident.
- Coach - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 12:40 pm:
Putting aside the legal implications, this is an interesting political move on Cullerton’s part. He put the Republicans in the very awkward position of having to publicly defend their participation in an obviously unconstitutional, unprecedented and strange event. One might say he succeeded in co-opting them. From his perspective, maybe that was the point.
- Levois - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 12:50 pm:
In Texas the President of the Senate is also Lt. Governor.
- GoldCoastConservative - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 12:51 pm:
Where is Lisa Madigan? It’s the Attorney General’s duty to “advocate on behalf of all of the people of Illinois” and to “litigate to ensure state laws are followed and respected.”
I’m sure she’s just seconds away from taking decisive action.
- Moving to Oklahoma - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 12:56 pm:
reminds me of the “double secret probation” that the delta house was put on. Maybe Cullerton was a Delat pledge.
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 1:16 pm:
You know, I see Cullerton making an effort to tamp partisanship down a little bit, and I say good for him. Maybe it will work, and my shorts don’t get in too much of a bunch at worrying about whether we will be able to find out what happened in a meeting attended by 59 Senators.
- Anon3 - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 1:23 pm:
SS is correct!
- YNM - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 1:35 pm:
I just love this part:
“But this is meant to be one where just the senators are there to get information, but where they can also feel like they can ask questions and have a free exchange of ideas without having to be worried about what the press might report”
Can you imagine the horror if constituents actualy knew the questions their elected officials asked? Or if the public actually witnessed the “open exchange of ideas”.
Things could get pretty crazy.
- Really?? - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 4:29 pm:
Maybe the other questions to ask is: Why ISN’T the House getting this same information on state budgets? I guess because they aren’t planning on doing anything about the budget mess in the first place???
- DuPage Dave - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 5:40 pm:
This is a big deal in my opinion. You can’t have 59 senators in session and exclude the public by saying it’s not really a session. Cullerton has out-thought himself on this one. It sets a precedent for operating in secret.
If today’s session was legit, then why couldn’t they have a “joint caucus” in secret, then convene in public 5 minutes later to vote on what they debated in private? I don’t see the difference.
Steve Schnorf is right that what transpired will become known shortly, but that is not open representative government. It’s more like a politburo than a legislature.
- Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Feb 17, 10 @ 9:44 pm:
I hope Sens. Cullerton and Radogno learned they should not hold their caucuses together. Good govt groups recommending holding your caucus alone.
What’s next? The great shell bill scandal of 2010? You mean they advance bills with no language to get around constitutional requirements? Read the Trib’s 18 part series starting Sunday.