In the News

Chicago Tribune, May 17, 2008

Visitor galleries loom over the floors of the Illinois House and Senate. You see a lot of tourists there, and Cub Scout packs and 8th graders on a field trip. They usually stay for a few minutes, listen to a little debate and head off for the Abraham Lincoln museum or the pool at the Hilton.

Which is good, because if they stayed around and heard everything said on the floor, they'd probably walk off shaking their heads and planning to relocate to Wisconsin.

We'd like to share with you a little of the discussion last week in the Illinois Senate on whether lawmakers should get a pay raise. The audio has been posted on thecapitolfax blog.com and the Daily Herald's Web site.

Some background: The state's Compensation Review Board has recommended that Illinois' part-time legislators get an 11.7 percent pay hike, which would raise the base pay to nearly $73,000. Legislators got a 10 percent increase last year. The raises will go into effect unless the House and the Senate vote to reject them.

The House voted 94-8 last week to reject the pay increase. But the Senate is stalling on a vote. What will the Senate do? Here's a hint: Recently, after the Senate rejected a constitutional amendment to allow the recall of public officials, Senate President Emil Jones plaintively said: "I need a pay raise! I need a pay raise!"

***

Now, on to the discussion from last week. First, here is what Sen. Rickey Hendon, chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, told reporters:

I believe we need a resolution that if you reject the pay raise and it passes anyway, you don't get it because, in the House, what they do all the time is, they reject it. Then they run over here and say, "You know, I voted against it, now, now don't be stupid like I am." They want to use the Senate, and pimp us and they keep taking the money. . . . If you vote against it, the individual person, vote against the raise and it passes anyway, then that individual will not get the raise. I think that's a good idea. . . .

If Sen. [Susan] Garrett puts in that resolution or, you know, is willing to be open-minded about it, then you know it will make it much easier for me to call it and let it out. You know, but people should not miss out on the fact that she's a millionaire. She don't need it. Have you seen her house? Go up there. Mind-boggling. So, you know, it just blows my mind how the filthy rich are always the ones saying, hey, we don't need the raise. No, she don't. That's why I was trying to get her check just then. I asked her to sign her per diem over to me. I would've took it if she signed her name. I would've took it. She doesn't need it. . . .

We're tired of letting the House pimp us. I intend to see what the esteemed senator from "Richville" does.

***

Garrett's response:

This bill should not be reflective of what kind of money legislators have in the bank. . . . It should be reflective . . . of letting taxpayers know that we believe we deserve a raise or don't deserve a raise. It should not be personal. He's making this personal and that's unfortunate. We're not here to draw distinctions between wealthy legislators and non-wealthy legislators. We're here to make sure that what we do here in Springfield is aboveboard and that the taxpayers . . . are made aware of how we vote on crucial issues such as this. . . .

I have no problem with [Hendon's idea], as I've said, because I've given my raise back. I've put my money where my mouth was. If you reject a raise, you should reject it honestly and then return it. . . .

There seems to be a pattern here in Springfield that we use each other as foils, one chamber uses the other chamber as a foil. Unfortunately what . . . happens here is the taxpayers get caught in the middle of, it's beyond bickering now. . . .

***

As Garrett is talking to reporters, Emil Jones steps in to say: I've got to get me some food stamps.

***

Back to Garrett:

Let me just say . . . some of the legislators have missed the point, if they think they need the raise because, you know, they're not making $150,000 a year. We're here as public servants and we're not here to assume we should be entitled to be receiving major increases every year when the rest of the state and other state employees are suffering.

***

What should the Senate do? Quit joking, quit insulting each other and reject the 11.7 percent pay raise. If the members' pay were based on performance, they'd be sending money back to taxpayers.