Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Mapping Referendum may not be on ballot

Rauner: Mapping ballot measure may suffer term limits' fate in high court

Local Government

Karen Kidd | Aug 16, 2016

Contributed photo

No one knows which way the state's Supreme Court will rule on the pending Independent Map Amendment ballot measure, but the litigation could face the same fate as previous rulings about term limits, Gov. Bruce Rauner recently told reporters.

"Where the Supreme Court comes out on it ultimately, I really don't know,"  Rauner told reporters at the kickoff of the 2016 Illinois State Fair last week in Springfield. "It's not a good sign that the first court to rule used the same basis to throw out fair maps that they used to throw out term limits two years ago, saying that if a change that impacts the legislature is going to be on a constitutional referendum, it has to be passed and put on the ballot by the legislature itself. That's basically the outcome of their ruling."

The State Supreme Court, in the summer of 2014, denied a petition that sought review of an appellate court's ruling that a term-limit ballot initiative was unconstitutional.

Now the state Supreme Court is considering an appeal concerning the latest Independent Map Amendment measure that supporters want on November's ballot. The measure calls for the creation of a multi-stage redistricting process that would create an 11-member commission to create a new district map for the state.

The ballot measure is similar to the Illinois Independent Redistricting Amendment, known as "Yes for Independent Maps," a 2014 effort that didn't reach that year's November ballot after a Cook County judge ruled it was unconstitutional.

A challenge to the latest proposed Independent Map Amendment was filed in May in Cook County Circuit Court soon after the Independent Maps group filed its petition with state election officials. The petition contained twice as many signatures required to place the amendment on the November ballot.

The challenge, filed by plaintiffs tied to Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Dist. 22), alleged the ballot question violates the state's Constitution, including safeguard provisions in Article XIV. The challenge also alleges the ballot question usurps the authority of the democratically elected General Assembly and the governor to enact redistricting legislation.

In July, a Cook County judge blocked the amendment from being added to the November ballot, which prompted supporters to assert that, if allowed to stand, such a decision would eviscerate the right of Illinois residents to propose constitutional reforms.

Rauner told reporters that he is focusing on the term-limits court outcome, even as he considers what the state Supreme Court might do in the Independent Map Amendment case. The two proposals have had similar court outcomes so far. "That's what they said about term limits," Rauner said. "That's the reason we are asking voters, the people of Illinois, to ask their legislators to vote for term limits to get it on the ballot. The people deserve to vote on this themselves. They deserve the same thing with fair maps. I'm worried that the Supreme Court may come out the same door that the lower court did; we don't know. But we've just got to stay the course and advocate for it."

The Independent Map Amendment ballot measure is among several reforms that Rauner is advocating, especially in the upcoming legislative session and despite the announced resignation of a key ally in the Assembly, State Sen. Matt Murphy (R-Dist. 27). The senator said in an open letter on his website that his resignation will be effective Sept. 15.

"I think he's been a great legislator," Rauner said. "He will be missed, no question. That said, we have strong advocates in the General Assembly for what we are recommending for reform. Frankly, we have strong advocates in the Republican Caucus. We've got some strong advocates in the Democratic Caucus. Some of them are more quiet about it that they might otherwise be, but we've got advocates on both sides of the aisle. And I'm optimistic we'll get some good reforms done for the people."

Above is from:  http://sangamonsun.com/stories/510994369-rauner-mapping-ballot-measure-may-suffer-term-limits-fate-in-high-court

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Anti-Corruption referendum on Boone County Agenda

 

image

 

Scott Gessert

By KEVIN P. CRAVER kcraver @shawmedia.com

WOODSTOCK – An advisory referendum aimed at marshaling support for anti-corruption laws to remove money from politics has a second lease on life for the Nov. 8 ballot.

The cancellation of the McHenry County Board committee that was next set to debate the referendum at first prevented it from appearing on the full board agenda Tuesday, which is the last County Board meeting before the Aug. 22 deadline to put referendums on the ballot. But a behind-the-scenes push got it added for a Tuesday vote.

Woodstock resident Scott Gessert, who has asked the board during its past several meetings to advance the question, said he was happy that the question will have a chance, but was upset that it almost didn’t. He is the McHenry County leader of the national grass-roots group Represent.Us, which is pushing nationwide for anti-corruption legislation.

“I am concerned that it took such an effort to get a simple advisory referendum through committee. I’m looking forward to the community coming forward to show their support for this initiative,” Gessert said.

If put on the ballot by the County Board, voters in one yes-or-no question will be asked whether they support prohibiting politicians from taking campaign money from special interests they regulate; increasing campaign funding transparency; allowing voters to contribute to candidates through a tax-rebate voucher; placing limits on how much super-PACs can raise and spend; and prohibiting elected officials and their senior staff from participating in lobbying activity for five years after leaving office.

The question mirrors one that appeared on ballots last year in Winnebago and DeKalb counties – voters approved them both. A similar effort is underway to get the question put before Boone County voters

Above is from:  http://www.nwherald.com/2016/08/12/anti-corruption-referendum-added-to-mchenry-county-board-agenda/aqqkr7m/

 

 

August 17 Boone County Board Board Agenda:  13.2 Motion to Approve Resolution 16-18 Which Places an Advisory Referendum on the November 8, 2016 Ballot Related to Anti-Corruption Reform. (Approved 5-0)

Below is the information submitted by Scott Gesssert  of Represent Us

image

image

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Games being played on Illinois insurance bill?

 

On Sunday August 14, 2016 CBS Sixty Minutes re-broadcast a report on life insurance companies not informing beneficiaries when an insured is known to be deceased with a death benefit available. It appears that Illinois’ legislature has done something about the situation but the Governor has yet to sign the bill even though the bill was sent to his office on June 27, 2016. 

This editorial was originally published in June.  The actual legislation HR 4633 is shown below the editorial.

 

  • Their View: Rauner should sign life insurance bill

    •  

       

  • Many, perhaps most of us, have life insurance policies that we believe will provide a modicum of security to our loved ones when we die.
    But did you know that unless your beneficiary files a claim for the benefits provided by that policy, the insurance company doesn't have to pay out, even though the Social Security Administration keeps an up-to-date Master Death File to inform everyone promptly who has died?
    It's true. Indeed, the company doesn't even have to notify the executor of your estate that a policy exists.
    Now, it's true that most couples communicate with each another and are well aware of each other's policies. But not always. Say you've taken out a second policy just to make sure your family is secure when you're gone and you just never mentioned it.
    When you've died, unless your spouse or your will's executor finds it promptly and files a claim, the insurer can keep the money. If you've taken out an annuity, the insurer can keep the money you've built up in your account, too.
    To correct this legal loophole in Illinois, State Treasurer Michael Frerichs had legislation introduced in the General Assembly to change state law to make insurance companies straighten up and fly right. Frerichs explained the bill in a June 1 news release:
    "House Bill 4633 requires insurers to periodically match their policies, annuity contracts and retained asset accounts against the Death Master File. If an insurer runs the (master file) more frequently to stop annuity payments, it must do the same for death benefits. If a match is found and the beneficiaries do not file a claim within 120 days, the insurer must make a good-faith effort to locate the beneficiaries. If the insurer locates the beneficiaries, they must provide them with the proper forms to claim the proceeds. If the insurer does not locate the beneficiaries and no one claims the proceeds from the insurer within the statutory five-year period, the money must be turned over to the state so the treasurer can continue attempting to locate the beneficiaries."
    The bill passed the House 118-0. It passed the Senate 54-0.
    How bad is the situation? Frerichs said that "since 2011, Illinois has used audits to identify more than $550 million in life insurance proceeds that should have been paid to beneficiaries in Illinois."
    The bill is now on Gov. Bruce Rauner's desk. We urge him to sign it — without monkeying around with it using his amendatory veto.
    This bill is obviously popular with the people we send to Springfield, which is why no one voted against the measure. But the insurance industry is a powerful lobby in Illinois, and it isn't giving up.
    Frerichs has been sued by Chicago-based Kemper Corp. and three insurance companies under its umbrella. Kemper said it shouldn't be required to take steps to find out whether someone has died and that benefits are payable.
    Still, signing a bill that passed unanimously should be a no-brainer for the governor, right?
    Wrong. We have sent quite a few no-brainers to Springfield, and lots of shape-shifters, too. Shape-shifters pretend to be for something but are actually against it.
    Based on the Editorial Board's decades of collective experience following the antics of the General Assembly, here's what we fear could happen:
    The governor uses his amendatory veto to weaken the bill while claiming he's improving it. Then, Speaker of the House Michael Madigan says he won't bring up bills on which Rauner has used his amendatory veto.
    Presto! The bill dies without anyone's fingers on it. Everyone can campaign for re-election claiming, "I was for this bill, but the governor (or speaker) spiked it."
    Meanwhile, the governor and the speaker can blame each other — and the insurance lobby wins quietly.
    This shouldn't happen, and we don't know that it will, but it could, which is why we again urge Gov. Rauner to be a hero, not a zero, and sign the bill as it was written and passed.
    — GateHouse News Service. This editorial originally appeared in the Rockford Register-Star.
  • Above is from:  http://www.sj-r.com/opinion/20160627/their-view-rauner-should-sign-life-insurance-bill
  •  

image

New Act

215 ILCS 5/424
from Ch. 73, par. 1031

Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Unclaimed Life Insurance Benefits Act. Provides that the purpose of the Act is to require all authorized insurers regulated by the Department of Insurance to undertake good faith efforts, as specified in the Act, to locate and pay beneficiaries' proceeds under unclaimed life insurance policies, annuity contracts, and retained asset accounts issued in the State or remit such proceeds as unclaimed property to the appropriate jurisdiction if the beneficiaries are unable to be located or paid. Requires insurers to implement the certain policies and procedures for performing a comparison of its policies, annuity contracts, and retained asset accounts against the United States Social Security Administration's Death Master File. Provides that failure to meet any requirement of the Act is an unfair trade practice under the Illinois Insurance Code, and amends the Illinois Insurance Code to make a corresponding change.
Senate Committee Amendment No. 1
Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Reinserts the provisions of the engrossed bill with the following changes: Makes changes to provisions setting forth the purpose of the Act. Requires insurers to complete an initial comparison of its records with the Death Master File by December 31, 2017 and then on a semi-annual basis thereafter. Provides that in the event that one of the insurer's lines of business conducts a search for matches more frequently than semi-annually, then all lines of the insurer's business shall conduct searches for matches with the same frequency. Removes provisions concerning partial matches. Makes changes to the procedure for potential matches and searches an insurer must perform. Provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to amend, modify, or supersede the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act. Requires the Department of Insurance to develop and implement a lost policy finder to assist requesters with locating unclaimed life insurance benefits. Provides that the Department may limit an insurer's Death Master File comparisons to the insurer's electronic searchable files or approve a plan and timeline for conversion of the insurer's files to searchable electronic files upon a demonstration of hardship by the insurer. Removes and makes changes to certain definitions. Changes various references from "insureds" to "insureds, annuitants, and retained asset account holders." Makes other changes.

Full Text of HB4633


Introduced Engrossed Enrolled
Senate Amendment 001
Printer-Friendly Version PDF Bill Status


HB4633 Enrolled
LRB099 18214 JLS 44479 b

1
AN ACT concerning business.

2
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,

3
represented in the General Assembly:

4
Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the

5
Unclaimed Life Insurance Benefits Act.

6
Section 5. Purpose. This Act shall require recognition of

7
the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act and require

8
the complete and proper disclosure, transparency, and

9
accountability relating to any method of payment for life

10
insurance, annuity, or retained asset agreement death

11
benefits.

12
Section 10. Definitions. As used in this Act:

13
"Annuity contract" does not include an annuity contract

14
used to fund an employment-based retirement plan or program

15
where (1) the insurer does not perform the record keeping

16
services or (2) the insurer is not committed by the terms of

17
the annuity contract to pay death benefits to the beneficiaries

18
of specific plan participants.

19
"Date of death" means the date on which an insured, annuity

20
owner, or retained asset account holder died.

21
"Date of death notice" means the date the insurer first has

22
notice of the date of death of an insured, annuity owner, or

HB4633 Enrolled
- 2 -
LRB099 18214 JLS 44479 b

1
retained asset account holder. "Date of death notice" includes,

2
but is not limited to, the date the insurer received

3
information or gained knowledge of a Death Master File match or

4
any other source or record maintained or located in insurer

5
records of the death of an insured, annuity owner, or retained

6
asset account holder.

7
"Death Master File" means the United States Social Security

8
Administration's Death Master File or any other database or

9
service that is at least as comprehensive as the United States

10
Social Security Administration's Death Master File for

11
determining that a person has reportedly died.

12
"Death Master File match" means a match of the social

13
security number or the name and date of birth of an insured,

14
annuity owner, or retained asset account holder resulting from

15
a search of the Death Master File.

16
"Department" means the Department of Insurance.

17
"Lost policy finder" means a service made available by the

18
Department on its website or otherwise developed by the

19
Department to assist consumers with locating unclaimed life

20
insurance benefits.

21
"Policy" means any policy or certificate of life insurance

22
that provides a death benefit. "Policy" does not include any

23
policy or certificate of credit life or accidental death

24
insurance or health coverages, including, but not limited to,

25
disability and long-term care arising from the reported death

26
of a person insured under the coverage, or any policy issued to

HB4633 Enrolled
- 3 -
LRB099 18214 JLS 44479 b

1
a group master policyholder for which the insurer does not

2
provide record keeping services.

3
"Record keeping services" means services provided under

4
circumstances in which the insurer has agreed with a group

5
policy or annuity contract customer to be responsible for

6
obtaining, maintaining, and administering its own or its

7
agents' systems information about each individual insured

8
under an insured's group insurance contract, or a line of

9
coverage thereunder, including, but not limited to, the

10
following: (1) social security number or name and date of

11
birth, (2) beneficiary designation information, (3) coverage

12
eligibility, (4) benefit amount, and (5) premium payment

13
status.

14
"Retained asset account" means any mechanism whereby the

15
settlement of proceeds payable under a policy or annuity

16
contract is accomplished by the insurer or an entity acting on

17
behalf of the insurer depositing the proceeds into an account

18
with check or draft writing privileges, where those proceeds

19
are retained by the insurer or its agent pursuant to a

20
supplementary contract not involving annuity benefits other

21
than death benefits.

22
Section 15. Insurer conduct.

23
(a) An insurer shall initially perform a comparison of its

24
insureds', annuitants', and retained asset account holders'

25
in-force policies, annuity contracts, and retained asset

HB4633 Enrolled
- 4 -
LRB099 18214 JLS 44479 b

1
accounts by using the full Death Master File. The initial

2
comparison shall be completed on or before December 31, 2017,

3
unless extended by the Department pursuant to administrative

4
rule. Thereafter, an insurer shall perform a comparison on at

5
least a semi-annual basis using the Death Master File update

6
files for comparisons to identify potential matches of its

7
insureds, annuitants, and retained asset account holders. In

8
the event that one of the insurer's lines of business conducts

9
a search for matches of its insureds, annuitants, and retained

10
asset account holders against the Death Master File at

11
intervals more frequently than semi-annually, then all lines of

12
the insurer's business shall conduct searches for matches

13
against the Death Master File with the same frequency.

14
An insured, an annuitant, or a retained asset account

15
holder is presumed dead if the date of his or her death is

16
indicated by the comparison required in this subsection (a),

17
unless the insurer has competent and substantial evidence that

18
the person is living, including, but not limited to, a contact

19
made by the insurer with the person or his or her legal

20
representative.

21
For those potential matches identified as a result of a

22
Death Master File match, the insurer shall within 120 days

23
after the date of death notice, if the insurer has not been

24
contacted by a beneficiary, determine whether benefits are due

25
in accordance with the applicable policy or contract and, if

26
benefits are due in accordance with the applicable policy or

HB4633 Enrolled
- 5 -
LRB099 18214 JLS 44479 b

1
contract:

2
(1) use good faith efforts, which shall be documented

3
by the insurer, to locate the beneficiary or beneficiaries;

4
the Department shall establish by administrative rule

5
minimum standards for what constitutes good faith efforts

6
to locate a beneficiary, which shall include: (A) searching

7
insurer records; (B) the appropriate use of First Class

8
United States mail, e-mail addresses, and telephone calls;

9
and (C) reasonable efforts by insurers to obtain updated

10
contact information for the beneficiary or beneficiaries;

11
good faith efforts shall not include additional attempts to

12
contact the beneficiary at an address already confirmed not

13
to be current; and

14
(2) provide the appropriate claims forms or

15
instructions to the beneficiary or beneficiaries to make a

16
claim, including the need to provide an official death

17
certificate if applicable under the policy or annuity

18
contract.

19
(b) Insurers shall implement procedures to account for the

20
following when conducting searches of the Death Master File:

21
(1) common nicknames, initials used in lieu of a first

22
or middle name, use of a middle name, compound first and

23
middle names, and interchanged first and middle names;

24
(2) compound last names, maiden or married names, and

25
hyphens, blank spaces, or apostrophes in last names;

26
(3) transposition of the "month" and "date" portions of

HB4633 Enrolled
- 6 -
LRB099 18214 JLS 44479 b

1
the date of birth; and

2
(4) incomplete social security numbers.

3
(c) To the extent permitted by law, an insurer may disclose

4
the minimum necessary personal information about the insured,

5
annuity owner, retained asset account holder, or beneficiary to

6
a person whom the insurer reasonably believes may be able to

7
assist the insurer with locating the beneficiary or a person

8
otherwise entitled to payment of the claims proceeds.

9
(d) An insurer or its service provider shall not charge any

10
beneficiary or other authorized representative for any fees or

11
costs associated with a Death Master File search or

12
verification of a Death Master File match conducted pursuant to

13
this Act.

14
(e) The benefits from a policy, annuity contract, or a

15
retained asset account, plus any applicable accrued interest,

16
shall first be payable to the designated beneficiaries or

17
owners and, in the event the beneficiaries or owners cannot be

18
found, shall be reported and delivered to the State Treasurer

19
pursuant to the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act.

20
Nothing in this subsection (e) is intended to alter the amounts

21
reportable under the existing provisions of the Uniform

22
Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act or to allow the

23
imposition of additional statutory interest under Article XIV

24
of the Illinois Insurance Code.

25
(f) Failure to meet any requirement of this Section with

26
such frequency as to constitute a general business practice is

HB4633 Enrolled
- 7 -
LRB099 18214 JLS 44479 b

1
a violation of Section 424 of the Illinois Insurance Code.

2
Nothing in this Section shall be construed to create or imply a

3
private cause of action for a violation of this Section.

4
Section 20. Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act.

5
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to amend, modify, or

6
supersede the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act,

7
including the authority of the State Treasurer to examine the

8
records of any person if the State Treasurer has reason to

9
believe that such person has failed to report property that

10
should have been reported pursuant to the Uniform Disposition

11
of Unclaimed Property Act.

12
Section 25. Lost policy finder.

13
(a) The Department shall develop and implement a lost

14
policy finder to assist requesters with locating unclaimed life

15
insurance benefits. The lost policy finder shall be available

16
online and via other means. The Department shall assist a

17
requester with using the lost policy finder, including

18
informing the requester of the information that an insurer may

19
need to facilitate responding to the request.

20
(b) As soon as practicable, but no later than 30 days after

21
receiving a request from a requester via the lost policy

22
finder, the Department shall:

23
(1) forward the request to all insurers deemed

24
necessary by the Department in order to successfully

HB4633 Enrolled
- 8 -
LRB099 18214 JLS 44479 b

1
respond to the request; and

2
(2) inform the requester that the Department received

3
the request and forwarded the request to all insurers

4
deemed necessary by the Department in order to successfully

5
respond to the request.

6
(c) Upon receiving a request forwarded by the Department

7
through a lost policy finder, an insurer shall search for

8
policies and any accounts subject to this Act that insure the

9
life of or are owned by an individual named as the decedent in

10
the request forwarded by the Department.

11
(d) Within 30 days after receiving the request referenced

12
in subsection (b) of this Section, or within 45 days after

13
receiving the request where the insurer contracts with another

14
entity to maintain the insurer's records, the insurer shall:

15
(1) report to the Department through the lost policy

16
finder the findings of the search conducted pursuant to

17
subsection (c) of this Section;

18
(2) for each identified policy and account insuring the

19
life of, or owned by, the individual named as the decedent

20
in the request, provide to a requester who is:

21
(A) also the beneficiary of record on the

22
identified policy or account, the information

23
necessary to make a claim pursuant to the terms of the

24
policy or account; and

25
(B) not the beneficiary of record on the identified

26
policy or account, the requested information to the

HB4633 Enrolled
- 9 -
LRB099 18214 JLS 44479 b

1
extent permissible to be disclosed in accordance with

2
any applicable law, rule, or regulation and take such

3
other steps necessary to facilitate the payment of any

4
benefit that may be due under the identified policy or

5
account.

6
(e) The Department shall, within 30 days after receiving

7
from all insurers the information required in item (1) of

8
subsection (d) of this Section, inform the requester of the

9
results of the search.

10
(f) When a beneficiary identified in subsection (d) of this

11
Section submits a claim or claims to an insurer, the insurer

12
shall process such claim or claims and make prompt payments and

13
distributions in accordance with all applicable laws, rules,

14
and regulations.

15
(g) Within 30 days after the final disposition of the

16
request, an insurer shall report to the Department through the

17
lost policy finder any benefits paid and any other information

18
requested by the Department.

19
Section 30. Administrative rules.

20
(a) The Department shall adopt rules to administer and

21
implement this Act.

22
(b) The Department may limit an insurer's Death Master File

23
comparisons required under Section 15 of this Act to the

24
insurer's electronic searchable files or approve a plan and

25
timeline for conversion of the insurer's files to searchable

HB4633 Enrolled
- 10 -
LRB099 18214 JLS 44479 b

1
electronic files upon a demonstration of hardship by the

2
insurer.

3
Section 35. Application. The provisions of this Act apply

4
to policies, annuity contracts, and retained asset accounts in

5
force on or after the effective date of this Act.

6
Section 40. The Illinois Insurance Code is amended by

7
changing Section 424 as follows:

8
(215 ILCS 5/424) (from Ch. 73, par. 1031)

9
Sec. 424. Unfair methods of competition and unfair or

10
deceptive acts or practices defined. The following are hereby

11
defined as unfair methods of competition and unfair and

12
deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance:

13
(1) The commission by any person of any one or more of

14
the acts defined or prohibited by Sections 134, 143.24c,

15
147, 148, 149, 151, 155.22, 155.22a, 155.42, 236, 237, 364,

16
and 469 of this Code.

17
(2) Entering into any agreement to commit, or by any

18
concerted action committing, any act of boycott, coercion

19
or intimidation resulting in or tending to result in

20
unreasonable restraint of, or monopoly in, the business of

21
insurance.

22
(3) Making or permitting, in the case of insurance of

23
the types enumerated in Classes 1, 2, and 3 of Section 4,

HB4633 Enrolled
- 11 -
LRB099 18214 JLS 44479 b

1
any unfair discrimination between individuals or risks of

2
the same class or of essentially the same hazard and

3
expense element because of the race, color, religion, or

4
national origin of such insurance risks or applicants. The

5
application of this Article to the types of insurance

6
enumerated in Class 1 of Section 4 shall in no way limit,

7
reduce, or impair the protections and remedies already

8
provided for by Sections 236 and 364 of this Code or any

9
other provision of this Code.

10
(4) Engaging in any of the acts or practices defined in

11
or prohibited by Sections 154.5 through 154.8 of this Code.

12
(5) Making or charging any rate for insurance against

13
losses arising from the use or ownership of a motor vehicle

14
which requires a higher premium of any person by reason of

15
his physical disability, race, color, religion, or

16
national origin.

17
(6) Failing to meet any requirement of the Unclaimed

18
Life Insurance Benefits Act with such frequency as to

19
constitute a general business practice.

20
(Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)

Toria Funderburg speaks further on Health Department and other county activities

LETTER TO THE EDITOR-PUBLISHED AUGUST 12, 2016 IN THE BOONE COUNTY JOURNAL BY TORIA FUNDERBURG

How Not-For- Profits serve OUR County

Not-For- Profits are the safety net for many of Boone County citizens! Many of these organizations provide a service to the citizens that the Health Department does not or will not provide. The NFPs GIVE back to the citizens. The HD CHARGES fees for their services to support their $1.1 plus million dollar budget.

The fire departments, Lions Clubs, day care centers, schools, Helping Hands, Mental Health Resources League, YMCA, granges, food pantries and churches to name a few, GIVE back to the community and are NOT PAID for their services. They give BECAUSE their community needs help. There are some groups who have provided assistance for those in need since Boone County was established!!

Many NFP benefits, which have for years raised charitable donations to help others, have ceased doing so because of strict permit requirements. BYB ICE CREAM SOCIALS! Over the many years that this delightful event took place, how many people contracted a food-born illness (NONE) compared to how many kids played ball and didn’t join gangs? Pancake breakfasts were a great way to enjoy some social food-sharing hours and raise money for a needy cause. How many are still going? Church bake sales and salad luncheons raised much needed charitable money as well!! How many people attending them got sick?? NONE!! Churches serve food after funerals and for fellowship gatherings. Today, their kitchens are inspected by the HD. WHO did the inspections a 100 years ago when these churches were helping the people of Boone County then??

Our country has developed a GERM phobia! The health industry forgets that people develop anti-bodies when the body is constantly exposed to some germs everyday. That's what our human body is designed to do! The idea of charging a $75 food permit to give away commercially bottled cold water or individually commercially wrapped suckers was ludicrous. But the HD tried! They want fees whenever and wherever they can charge for them. It seems to be more about getting MONEY than using common sense while helping others!

If I share some homemade cookies with the kids next door, will I need a food permit since they won't be baked in an inspected kitchen or be individually wrapped?? Inspectors don't handle food! Cooks handle food so give them some credit for common sense. It’s because of the careful and conscience efforts of our food handlers, that there have been NO food-born illnesses in well over 5 years.

Last year, the HD made 422 inspections, 1.6 per weekday! How many inspectors did it take to handled that daily caseload? And scheduling? Did the health dept. rotate its schedule to have inspectors work some regular hours on the weekend of Heritage Days? NO because their staff doesn't
work on weekends. BUT, wouldn't it have made sense to have them work THAT weekend when they were needed and take a few weekdays off? Sure, but the HD just paid for overtime adding to the cost of their bottom line. So remember, if you need health care on the weekend, you'll have to use Crusader Clinic or Immediate Care or go to your doctor, because our HD is closed.

The Moose raises money for “MOOSEHEART.” The Lions Clubs help the blind. The VFW is one of Boone County’s biggest charitable organizations. They have helped veterans since Americans have fought in wars! When the VETS asked for assistance from the county board, they were told by a few members of the county board, "Get in line!" It took a letter from Lisa Madigan in Springfield stating Boone County's legal and financial responsible to aid Boone County Vets before the VETS received any assistance from the county coffers! Do ours soldiers tell us "Get in line" when we need help? The American Legion and the VFW have raised over $139,000 with their video gambling for the Boone County coffers. Did the BC board have to "get in line"? No, they just deposited their check! Our VETS don't get anything that they haven't worked for!!

The VFW has given out over $120,000 in scholarships in the past 10 years. Paid $60,000 in postage to send care-packages to our BC active servicemen overseas. Monthly, the VFW donates money to the Belvidere/Boone Co. Food Pantry, Salvation Army, BYB and the BC Conservation District to pay the admission for under privileged children for summer camp. They also donate to RAMP and CASA. Wrongly charged fees by the HD for 8 years, the money returned was donated back to the citizens of BC. (The American Legion and the Moose Club were also wrongly charged but they haven'y received a refund yet.)

Since 2012, the VFW has donated thousands to the local Veterans Assistance Commission of Belvidere. Since July 2013, the VAC has returned over $200,000 to our local VETS in services to help with food, shelter and job searching. Where do you think this money comes from. From hard working VOLUNTEERS. Does the HD have a staff of volunteers! NO! Next year, the HD’s projected budget is
88% for salaries and benefits totaling $941,001 to just 18 people! And, 12% to the rest of BC's 53,000 citizens. The're also asking for salary increases as well! Where will it end?

The HD receives approximately $198,500 annually from our local Health Tax Referendum collected from Boone County! They also receive state and federal grants but those are YOUR tax dollars as well. Their 2017 projected earned revenue shows $6,250 for contractors licenses? $12,375 for soil bores and $3,600 in lab fees above the HD base cost. They also show $5,750 for well permits, $46,000 for septic permits and $17,500 for well and septic inspections needed to secure loan applications through HUD. Add on $80,000 they hope to collect in "Other Clinic Services" category and it's hard to remember they are suppose to be a nonprofit organization! Now they want money from charity groups! Where will it end?

Of course they will have dept. expenditures too. Like..."Other Professional Services" for $32,964? Soil and Water salary and wages' for $32,400. It would be nice to have those broken down a little more! "Other professional services"; is a "wide class" and $32,400 is a lot of money. More detail in this area would be nice.

Citizens wonder, has the HD ever looked at reducing staff, cutting duplicated programs and working with Crusader Clinic to provide pre-school check-ups, vaccinations, lab tests and wellness checks? It’s a money-saving concept and one that should be considered or will the HD just keep expanding at the taxpayers expense?? The BC taxpayers already pay for Crusader Clinic. Utilizing their services and trimming the HD dept. budget of wasteful spending and fat would be prudent!

According to Illinois State law, Boone County is not required to even have a health department. Our NFPs work for FREE and GIVE to the many needy families of Boone County!! Does the HD work for FREE?? Is anyone there a volunteer?? NO!! SO, WHAT is it about this sense of GREED the citizens are feeling against the HD that the HD can’t understand?? The HD operates with over a million dollar budget and still they want more! WHERE WILL IT END?

Director Cindy Frank should have thought more about conserving money and balancing her departments budget than giving two of her employee big raises, and then a 13% raise to HERSELF! Where did she think the money would come from to cover these pay increases which have cost the BC taxpayer over $200,000 in salaries and benefits these past three years?? Where will next year’s dollars come from??? Of course! Ask the county for more! Or, get it from NFPs! And how do you do that? Ask the county to eliminate COUNTY CODE – Article. II, Div. I, Sec 30-35, (“h”) and mandate that the NFPs must pay for a FOOD PERMIT! Money the HD takes from the NFPs, is money taken away from those families in need!! Not everyone’s need is related to a health issue!! Some of our citizens live below the poverty level, does anyone on the HD staff live below the poverty level??

Last fall, the Boone County board voted DOWN the HD's request to charge the NFPs a food permit fee. NOW, they want the BC to rewrite our county codes! Wasn't NO last fall a display of how the citizens feel about the HD's constant demand to take money from those who truly GIVE? Is the HD oblivious to any other needs besides health? The citizens of Boone County must live within their means and so should the HD. Still, the HD initiates new programs each year costing more money. Expanding beyond their budget is irresponsible. Asking the NFPs to prop up their budget and taking those dollars from those with other needs is GREEDY. The volunteers who work so hard helping others should tell your County Board to vote NO on changing the 501 code!!

Some say the “federally issued 501” tax classifications, is a wide class. Contributions to many 501s are NOT tax deductible! BUT, if citizens only give when they can deduct it from my taxes, “WHO” is it they are really helping? Should we demand a receipt at the “Little Red Kettle” or just drop something
in? Or the fireman with their “boot” collection, should we demand a receipt from him as well?? Should people give ONLY when THEY can get something in return? Is that what being charitable means? I TRULY HOPE NOT! Maybe Boone County should go back the multi-county health care system, contract out all services and eliminate the HD. It would cost the county less and the savings could be directed towards our public safety providers! They need more money and they work on weekends!

The "Department of Environmental Services" could be eliminated too. What tests do THEY actually preform? They don’t have a lab! They don’t have any equipment! Mr. Hatfield, the Director of Environmental Services is paid $70,011 a year including benefits by the HD for this position. What does Mr. Hatfield actually do? Calls a state licensed contractor! WHO handled these services before his position was established? The building dept. could private citizens needing these services initiate these calls? Absolutely! Letting them contact the building dept. for a list of state licensed contractors could save the county $70,011 a year. Once the inspection or service was completed, could the citizen then deliver the completed form to the building department showing the required service properly completed whether it be for closing a well, installing a new well or septic, or an inspection for the sale of property to meet a legal requirement? Absolutely!

This approach is NOT about eliminating services for the citizens of Boone County; it’s about working with others to eliminate the duplication of services and allowing the NFPs to help our citizens in ways the HD cannot. If the Boone County continues to have a HD then the HD must be more transparent and cost efficient with the taxpayer’s money.

Boone County should be PROUD that it DOES NOT charge its NFPs a fee for helping those in need! Many of these volunteers PAY for the privilege to GIVE!

(All salaries as as well as meeting are posted on the county website..boonecountyil.org. Check it out!)

Toria Funderburg,
Boone County resident.

Saturday, August 13, 2016

BREAKING: Illinois Governor Vetoes Law That Would Have Registered 2 Million Voters

 

image


 

Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner (R). CREDIT: AP Photo/Seth Perlman

Late Friday afternoon, Illinois’ Republican Governor Bruce Rauner vetoed a bill that would have made the state the sixth in the nation to automatically register millions of voters.

Rauner had expressed some support for the policy back in May, telling reporters: “I am a big fan of simplifying the voter registration process and trying to get everyone who should be able to vote, to get them registered and vote.”

By early August, he had a different view. While expressing support for the general idea of automatic voter registration, he wrote in his veto notice on Friday: “The consequences could be injurious to our election system.” Urging the legislature to make reforms to the bill before sending it back to him, he cited the threat of non-citizens registering to vote and casting ballots.

Yet study after study has found such voter fraud to be vanishingly rare, and recent federal court rulings asserted that the threat of illegal voting is not a serious enough justification for laws that make it harder for eligible voters to participate.

The non-partisan watchdog group Common Cause Illinois estimates the policy could help add two million new voters to the states rolls. In a statement Thursday, the group’s lead organizer Trevor Gervais accused the governor of “playing politics with something as important as voting rights.”

“He wants to delay implementation until 2019, after the next gubernatorial election,” Gervais said.

Because the Illinois state legislature passed the measure with an overwhelming majority in early June, they can now vote to override the veto.

If they do, the state will launch a program in 2018 that automatically registers Illinois residents to vote every time they visit a Department of Motor Vehicles, office of Human Services, office of Healthcare and Family Services, the Secretary of State’s office, or an Employment Security office.

If Rauner had approved the bill, the state would have followed the lead of Oregon, California, West Virginia, Vermont, and Connecticut, which have all approved the policy over the past few years. In Oregon, the only state so far where the policy has gone into effect, registration and voter participation have surged. The primary had one of the highest number of voters in Oregon’s history, second only to 2008’s historic election. The turnout rate also bested Kentucky’s, which held its primary that same day.

Illinois residents hope the policy could do the same for their state, which has seen dismally low turnout in recent elections, including the one that put Rauner in office. Advocates for the measure also say it will save the state money and make the voting rolls more accurate.

“When I go to the DMV and I’m asked if I want to register to vote, I currently have to fill out a separate form, by hand,” Christian Diaz with the organization Chicago Votes told ThinkProgress. “I then give it to a state worker who types the information from the paper sheet into the computer system, even though the government has already collected that same information. Human error also presents a huge issue. So this will make it a lot more efficient.”

But Illinois Republicans have complained that the policy makes political participation too easy.

“I think it’s important for the voter to have a little bit of initiative to do what they need to do and not just automatically be signed up,” said Rep. David Harris (R-Arlington Heights), adding that he worried if voters effortlessly registered, they wouldn’t do the work of educating themselves about the candidates on the ballot.

Above is from:  https://thinkprogress.org/breaking-illinois-governor-vetoes-law-that-would-have-registered-2-million-voters-c296b0b579a1#.x9qavn27v

Friday, August 12, 2016

GLB RR’s Patton key speaker at conference at NMU, Marquette, MI

 

Rail conference in Marquette August 17-18

By Nicole Walton 11 hours ago

ShareTwitter Facebook Google+ Email

MARQUETTE, MI--   Northern Michigan University is hosting the 4th annual Michigan Rail Conference next week. 

The event will feature more than 30 speakers in panel discussions and breakout sessions.  This year’s theme is “Connecting the Dots: Business, Communities and Technology.”  Topics include the future of rail in Michigan; preserving, maintaining, and enhancing Michigan rail assets; UP rail operations, UP shippers, and UP tech companies supporting the rail industry.

Keynote speakers include Michigan Tech Trustee and Marquette City Commissioner Tom Baldini and managing partner for Great Lakes Basin Railroad Frank Patton.

The conference takes place Wednesday and Thursday at NMU

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Madigan targets Rauner's support for Trump campaign

 

image

 

Madigan targets Rauner's support for Trump campaign

By Marc Filippino on Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 5:25 p.m.

House Speaker Michael Madigan, left, Gov. Bruce Rauner, right

Governor Bruce Rauner has stayed decidedly quiet about the 2016 presidential campaign.

Despite Rauner’s reluctance to comment, Democrats are pouncing on the opportunity to try to link the first-term governor to the Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump. Illinois House Speaker and Democratic Party Chairman Michael Madigan is one of those Democrats. Madigan has compared Rauner to Trump several times and said he feels fully justified grouping the two together.

In an interview with WSIU and WBBM radio stations published Aug. 1, Madigan said:

"Bruce Rauner is of record that he will fully support the Trump candidacy. It's documented. It’s available." 

We wondered if Madigan was right. Does Rauner fully support Trump? What’s Rauner’s take on the Republican presidential nominee? We looked into Madigan’s claim to find out.

Supporting the presidential nominee

When we asked where Madigan found the information backing his claim, Madigan spokesman Steve Brown simply said, "It’s everywhere online. Google it, and it will come up in 9 seconds."
Brown didn’t point to any specific articles, so we took his recommendation and Googled our question. For the record, it only took Google .45 seconds to find articles relating to Rauner and Trump.

In March, Rauner told reporters he would support the Republican presidential nominee, even if it turned out to be Trump. When asked why, Rauner explained, "I’m the leader of the Republican party in Illinois." He added, "I will do everything I can to support that nominee."

That same month, he told students in Wilmette he was "horrified" by the presidential campaign rhetoric. "Democracy is hard, you know, and this presidential election, oh my goodness, I'm appalled by the rhetoric, it's appalling," Rauner said. "And it's ugly and it's nasty and it's weird, and just some of the statements that get made, I'm just, I'm horrified."

Since those public comments, Rauner’s been asked repeatedly about his actions related to the presidential election. Rauner hasn’t said much and doesn’t answer questions about Trump.

On July 12, Rauner did not join Trump during a campaign fundraiser even though the two were both in Chicago that day. A week later, Rauner skipped the Republican National Convention in Cleveland when Trump formally became the party’s presidential nominee.   

Rauner’s aides told the Chicago Tribune the governor wouldn’t formally endorse Trump, and did not explain why not. The Tribune reported, "Rauner repeatedly had sought to stay out of the presidential race, though he did say that as leader of the GOP in Illinois, he would back the eventual nominee. But Rauner aides stressed there are various levels of "support," and that the governor would not be giving Trump a formal endorsement."

Brian Gaines, a political science professor at the University of Illinois, said because Rauner isn’t up for election this year, there’s really no reason for him make any more comments about his relationship with Trump.

"There’s no law saying that a politician needs to endorse their party’s candidate," Gaines said.

"(Sen.) Mark Kirk is the more interesting example. Since he would have more interaction with the president and he’s up for election, he really needs to comment. Rauner’s interaction is somewhat fabricated."

In June, Kirk said publicly he would no longer support Trump. Gaines said Rauner’s language regarding Trump is much more nuanced and purposefully vague.

"(Rauner) could say voting for Trump is a form of support and he wouldn’t have to say another word," Gaines explained. "And as the Trump campaign looks weaker and weaker, Rauner can point back and say ‘I never said I would endorse Trump.’"  

Rauner continues to refuse to answer questions from reporters about the presidential election, and his office did not return multiple requests for comment from PolitiFact Illinois for this story.  

Our ruling

"Bruce Rauner is of record that he will fully support the Trump candidacy. It's documented. It’s available." 

Madigan is correct. In March, Rauner said he would fully support the Republican presidential nominee. When asked by a reporter if he would still support the nominee if it’s Trump, Rauner reiterated his earlier statement, saying: "I will support the Republican Party’s nominee."

But Madigan does not reference any of Rauner’s subsequent comments, including Rauner’s refusal to formally endorse Trump.

We rate this claim Mostly True.

Above is from:  http://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2016/aug/10/michael-madigan/Madigan-highlights-Rauners-support-Trump-camp/