NIck Provenzano
At the meeting when the McHenry County Board decided to settle the Open Meetings Act violation with Local 150 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Legislative Committee Chairman Nick Provenzano said he wanted to amend the County’s legislative agenda.
Here are the minutes of the first meeting, held on May 13th, after that County Board meeting:
Amendment to the 2016 Legislative Program
The committee members reviewed the latest amendments made to the 2016 Legislative Program. The committee members were informed the program approved in January was not complete.
There were minor changes made to the program.
Today is for discussion purposes only.
They expect to take this information up as a resolution during the next committee meeting.
Carolyn Schofield
Ms. Schofield stated though she likes the bullet points though believes they may be too late to take a stance regarding the collective bargaining process.
It was stated that a decision has not been made on this issue yet, so they feel they still have time to add comments on this issue. Chairman Provenzano reminded the committee members it is not our fight to determine the legalities of an issue. We communicate our view points to our legislators, with the understanding they still have to hash out the issues.
It was stated they feel it is important to express our interests on that issue. It was suggested our voice be used on issues we do have a say in.
Yvonne Barnes
Ms. Barnes voiced concern as the other items have been discussed thoroughly and they all involve County Board business and this issue seemed to just “pop up”.
She questioned how items get added to the program.
Chairman Provenzano noted the legislative program includes items that may change as they move forward.
Ms. Schofield reminded the committee members the items have been previously discussed though one item was left out. Ms. Barnes questioned the past history on how the committee to approves the program.
She voiced concern as she thought the legislative program was already voted on.
The committee members were reminded that the annual program is a fluid document.
When they begin the legislative year, many of the items do not include bill numbers at the beginning of the legislative process so information is added as they move forward.
There are also other bills that may pop up that could affect County Government so those items are added to the program as well.
This is part of what the Legislative Committee does.
Donna Kurtz
Ms. Kurtz reminded the committee members that collective bargaining reform is a topic that interest many of the County Board members.
Any issue that may include significant costs for projects, issues that affect taxes or ways to stream line governments are all issues of concern to the County Board.
The status of the issues included in the program are items the membership needs to talk about, especially if it involves the high cost of government.
This is a way the County Board knows when certain legislation is being considered.
One item they always look out for is an increased cost of personnel.
That is the largest cost to government.
Personnel costs and unsustainable and out of our control.
This growth jeopardizes other programs that may be offered.
This is especially true because the County has held the levy flat the last four years.
County Board members will be the ones responsible for showing the residents what services will need to be cut. Ms. Schofield noted they have seen some savings in some of the union contracts.
Insurance costs are now being rolled into the unions.
They need to focus on cost savings in other areas in order to show the positives.
The committee reviewed the proposed legislative tenants.
Ms. Barnes noted the program identifies the priorities for specific proposed legislative action.
The first priority includes the support of legislation granting additional permissive authorities for counties.
She questioned what they mean by this statement.
It was stated they need the ability to pass ordinances to protect those in the unincorporated areas.
Ms. Barnes questioned what recent legislation was changed to reduce the existing authority of County Government.
The committee members were informed of the amount we are now required to pay jurors was changed, the requirement to purchase electronic poll books and now the General Assembly is looking to decide if local units of governments should be allowed to take to the allowable growth of the CPI.
In the past we have not needed the State to tell us whether to take this growth or not, the County made this decision on its own. The committee members were informed that page two is the most important part of this document.
The legislation is fluid so they came up with the tenants for guidance so the program isn’t as confusing. At the beginning, they do not include bill numbers though the bill numbers could change as the legislation moves along.
The committee members continued with their review of the Legislative Update sheet.
The list includes legislation we support, watch or oppose.
The items supported by the County are listed in green, those listed in red are the legislation the County opposes.
The items listed in yellow are to be watched.
The position of the items can be changed if desired. SB 231 would pull additional funding from down state and the collar county schools while funneling additional funds to the Chicago Public Schools.
Though we are not involved in this issue, it does have an impact on our local resources.
No one is in favor of sending additional funding to Chicago schools.
It was stated they do support some changes in school funding.
It was suggested this bill be changed to red, since it affects the local school districts. It was stated that Senator Althoff deserves credit in attempting to address the IMRF (Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund) issue to create more accountability.
Ms. Kurtz stated that the legislation does not allow anyone to get out of IMRF, which is concerning. It will be helpful if they are provided a way to opt out of this program.
The committee members continued with their review of the items included on the 2016 Legislative Program.
Included in the program is: SB231, SB386, SB388, SB2270, SB2270, SB2463, SB2701, SB2964, SB3019, SB3181, HB696, HB3760, HB4379, HB4501, HB4630, HB4715, HB5003, HB5522, HB5619, HB6083, HB6162, HB6261, HB6286, HJRCA5, and HJRCA 58. The committee members were informed they will continue to update the changes for any of the bills listed, this could include the addition of bills that affect County government.
Should the statement above: “Personnel costs and unsustainable and out of our control.” actually read: “Personnel costs are unsustainable and out of our control.”?
If so, why are they out of control?
Does the Board not have the backbone to stand up to the unions and STOP the out of control escalation of personnel costs?
That was a rhetorical question because obviously they do not.
They just used $25,000 of OUR taxpayer dollars to pay an additional union bribe (my opinion).
Insofar as the juror pay issue, why the H are we bringing in hundreds of jurors most every court day and not using any of them?
Why not wait until it had been determined that a jury trial is needed?
Where is the mention of the legislation being pushed to make government LESS accountable?
The legislation that committee members requested Althoff concoct that will allow the county to spend the $40 million Valley High reserve on other items.
Recently there was a post about McSeeney pushing for water testing relative to lead content.
I just read: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/02/lead-water-testing-cheats-chicago-boston-philadelphia
Any connection between lead in the drinking water and voting Democrat?
Should we only campaign for candidates who do not drink water from Municipal water systems?
Questioning – My understanding is, had the board used their, “backbone to stand up to the unions and STOP the out of control escalation of personnel costs” as you described, there could have been an escalation of the lawsuit and legal fees would have gotten out of control eclipsing the $25000 fine exponentially.
$25,000 is a bitter pill to swallow but I think the board showed their fiduciary responsibility by getting in front of this situation.
Had they not paid it, this could have dragged out to the point that a tax levy increase may have been necessary this year- which would be a shame after a few years of flat or lower levies year over year.
Like I put out there before & Mrs. Kurtz brings up,
The legislation Pam Althoff wrote & let Jack Franks
AMMEND, doesn’t allow people in the IMRF pensions
To get out of them.
Just don’t think that was an oversight but a trap.
Pam Althoff, either u were used by Jack Franks
Or it was intentional to not give current IMRF contributors
A way out.
Glad Mrs. Kurtz brought this issue out because
It is a BIG ONE !
Doubtful there is a reason this happened,
But would LOVE to hear if there was a
Legitimate one (not lame excuses).
Testing for lead?
Hell, take the fluoride out of the water!
It’s a costly known neurotoxin that is put in our water on purpose! WHY??????????
I disagree with Mr. O’Neil.
The threat of the lawsuit was not even accompanied with a formal filing.
The Board ‘caved in’ just like Corporations cave-in to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Until we start to ‘hold our ground’ we will suffer the same fate as Napoleon.
The difference this time is that not one shot is being and one person is being directly euthanized.
Unions and so-called civil rights activists (like the guy in the White House) are using your money to elect people to office.
People who are directly responsible for the decay of our once ‘great society’.
Check out this story:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/31/sessions-quasi-government-groups-are-using-federal-funds-to-advance-anti-trump-agenda/
Anyone else see smoke and mirrors?
And the people were satisfied with that answer.
Sad, they get away with this junk all the time.
Questioning is right.
Looks like it is scripted right from the rule book.
@Questioning: There was absolutely a formal filing of a lawsuit in Circuit Court.
Judge Chmiel allowed the case to proceed full steam ahead.
We went through the discovery stage of the law suit.
Depositions were scheduled!
This trial would have lasted quite some time.
Not my estimate but that of our legal counsel in the State’s Attorneys office.