Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Candlewick Lake drinking water concerns

Residents say they want to be reimbursed for dirty water, damages to homes

 

By Emily Waldron | ewaldron@wtvo.com

Published 08/16 2016 10:28PM

Updated 08/17 2016 08:59AM

 

POPLAR GROVE

During a board meeting Tuesday night, Candlewick Lake residents demanded repayment for the damages caused to some of their homes by dirty water.

The community’s water provider – Aqua America – came to the meeting to try to provide answers to residents.

Over a dozen residents got up to speak, asking questions about why they never received notice from Aqua about the wells needing repairs. Aqua says they sent out automated phone calls, however that is a service residents need to sign up for.

Many also wanted to know if there would be any kind of reimbursements on their water bills, or some kind of repayment to fix appliances in their homes that were ruined by the dirty water. Aqua openly stated that they will not be offering any reimbursements.

Residents in attendance said they pay anywhere from $100-300 per month for Aqua's water.

"They're not looking at compensating us,” said resident Tina Hamilton. “In fact, they have informed us that no, the price is going to keep going up."

Another woman says the dirty water could have forced her husband – who has stage 4 kidney disease – onto dialysis.

"I heard tonight that they were adding some sort of chemical to the water to counteract Iron, and my concern is, is that safe for my husband to drink? We weren't notified of anything being added to our water,” said resident Linda Manliguis.

The Candlewick Board says they're now looking into creating a committee of some kind to oversee Aqua's operations within the community in the future. They have not said whether they will consider switching from Aqua to another water provider.

Above is from:  http://www.mystateline.com/news/candlewick-residents-confront-aqua-again

Jarid Funderburg appoint to RVC board

Rock Valley College Board of Trustees Fills Vacancy

Posted: Monday, August 15, 2016

Media Contact: RVC Public Relations, 815-921-4510

The Rock Valley College Board of Trustees this evening announced the appointment of Jarid Funderburg to the seat vacated by Frank Haney’s resignation, which was accepted by the board at its July 27, 2016, meeting.

Mr. Funderburg is the Executive Director of Growth Dimensions, a Boone County and Belvidere, Illinois economic development corporation.

Mr. Funderburg was sworn it at a special meeting of the Board of Trustees on August 15, 2016, to fill the unexpired term. The seat will be open for election along with two other expiring terms in April 2017.

Above is from:  http://www.rockvalleycollege.edu/News/Article.cfm?customel_datapageid_9035=185062

 

 

  • image

  •  

  • Jarid Funderburg named to Rock Valley College Board of Trustees

    •  
  • By Corina Curry
    Staff writer

    Rockford Register Star

    By Corina Curry
    Staff writer

    Posted Aug. 16, 2016 at 3:26 PM
    Updated Aug 17, 2016 at 2:38 PM

  • |

     

  •  

  • ROCKFORD — Jarid Funderburg has replaced Frank Haney on the Rock Valley College Board of Trustees.
    Haney resigned in July to focus on his campaign for Winnebago County Board chairman.
    Funderburg is the executive director of Growth Dimensions, a Boone County and Belvidere economic development corporation.
    Funderburg was sworn in to fill Haney's unexpired term at a special meeting of the board on Monday.
    Funderburg's seat, along with two others, will be up for election in April 2017.
    Corina Curry: 815-987-1371; ccurry@rrstar.com; @corinacurry

Above is from:  http://www.rrstar.com/news/20160816/jarid-funderburg-named-to-rock-valley-college-board-of-trustees

AP Sources: Manafort tied to undisclosed foreign lobbying

 

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump's campaign chairman helped a pro-Russian governing party in Ukraine secretly route at least $2.2 million in payments to two prominent Washington lobbying firms in 2012, and did so in a way that effectively obscured the foreign political party's efforts to influence U.S. policy.

The revelation, provided to The Associated Press by people directly knowledgeable about the effort, comes at a time when Trump has faced criticism for his friendly overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin. It also casts new light on the business practices of campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

Under federal law, U.S. lobbyists must declare publicly if they represent foreign leaders or their political parties and provide detailed reports about their actions to the Justice Department. A violation is a felony and can result in up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

Trump shook up his campaign organization Wednesday, putting two new longtime Republican conservative strategists as chief executive officer and campaign manager. It was unclear what impact the shakeup would have on Manafort, but he retains his title as campaign chairman.

Manafort and business associate Rick Gates, another top strategist in Trump's campaign, were working in 2012 on behalf of the political party of Ukraine's then-president, Viktor Yanukovych.

People with direct knowledge of Gates' work said that, during the period when Gates and Manafort were consultants to the Ukraine president's political party, Gates was also helping steer the advocacy work done by a pro-Yanukovych nonprofit that hired a pair of Washington lobbying firms, Podesta Group Inc. and Mercury LLC.

The nonprofit, the newly created European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, was governed by a board that initially included parliament members from Yanukovych's party. The nonprofit subsequently paid at least $2.2 million to the lobbying firms to advocate positions generally in line with those of Yanukovych's government.

That lobbying included downplaying the necessity of a congressional resolution meant to pressure the Ukrainian leader to release an imprisoned political rival.

The lobbying firms continued the work until shortly after Yanukovych fled the country in February 2014, during a popular revolt prompted in part by his government's crackdown on protesters and close ties to Russia.

Among those who described Manafort's and Gates's relationship with the nonprofit are current and former employees of the Podesta Group. Some of them spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal details about the work and because they remain subject to non-disclosure agreements.

Gates told the AP that he and Manafort introduced the lobbying firms to the European Centre nonprofit and occasionally consulted with the firms on Ukrainian politics. He called the actions lawful, and said there was no attempt to circumvent the reporting requirements of the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The heads of both lobbying firms told AP they concluded there was no obligation to disclose their activities to the Justice Department. Manafort did not directly respond to AP's requests to discuss the work, but he was copied on the AP's questions and Gates said he spoke to Manafort before providing answers to them.

Political consultants are generally leery of registering under the foreign agents law, because their reputations can suffer once they are on record as accepting money to advocate the interests of foreign governments — especially if those interests conflict with America's.

Ironically, one of the lobbying firms Manafort and Gates worked with has strong Democratic ties.

The founder and chairman of the Podesta Group, Tony Podesta, is the brother of longtime Democratic strategist John Podesta, who now is campaign chairman for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The head of Mercury, Vin Weber, is an influential Republican, former congressman and former special policy adviser to Mitt Romney. Weber announced earlier this month that he will not support Trump.

After being introduced to the lobbying firms, the European nonprofit paid the Podesta Group $1.13 million between June 2012 and April 2014 to lobby Congress, the White House National Security Council, the State Department and other federal agencies, according to U.S. lobbying records.

The nonprofit also paid $1.07 million over roughly the same period to Mercury to lobby Congress. Among other issues, Mercury opposed congressional efforts to pressure Ukraine to release one of Yanukovych's political rivals from prison.

One former Podesta employee, speaking on condition of anonymity because of a non-disclosure agreement, said Gates described the nonprofit's role in an April, 2012 meeting as supplying a source of money that could not be traced to the Ukrainian politicians who were paying him and Manafort.

In separate interviews, three current and former Podesta employees said disagreements broke out within the firm over the arrangement, which at least one former employee considered obviously illegal. Podesta, who said the project was vetted by his firm's counsel, said he was unaware of any such disagreements.

A legal opinion drafted for the project for Mercury in May 2012, and obtained by AP, concluded that the European Centre qualified as a "foreign principal" under the Foreign Agents Registration Act but said disclosure to the Justice Department was not required. That determination was based on the nonprofit's assurances that none of its activities was directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized by Ukraine's government or any of the country's political parties.

The Podesta Group's CEO, Kimberley Fritts, said the two lobbying firms had coordinated on the legal conclusion that disclosure was not necessary to the Justice Department.

"If counsel had determined FARA was the way to go, we would have gladly registered under FARA," she said in a statement to the AP. She said the nonprofit provided a signed statement affirming its independence from Ukraine's government.

People involved in the lobbying project offered contradictory descriptions of how it came about.

Podesta told the AP his firm worked closely with the nonprofit and with Gates simultaneously. But Podesta said Gates was not working for Yanukovych's political party and said Manafort was not involved.

"I was never given any reason to believe Rick was a Party of Regions consultant," said John Ward Anderson, a current Podesta employee who attended the meeting, in a statement provided by his firm. "My assumption was that he was working for the Centre, as we were."

Gates, in contrast, told AP he was working with Manafort and that both he and Manafort were working for Yanukovych's party.

Pointing to Manafort's involvement, Weber told AP that Manafort discussed the project before it began in a conference call with Podesta and himself.

The director of the European Centre, Ina Kirsch, told the AP her group never worked with Manafort or Gates and said the group hired the Washington lobbyists on its own. She said she had met with Manafort twice but said neither Manafort nor Gates played a role in its lobbying activities.

The center has declined for years to reveal specific sources of its funding.

Prosecutions under the Foreign Agents Registration Act are generally rare, although a former U.S. congressman, Mark Siljander, R-Mich., pleaded guilty in July 2010 to illegal lobbying under the law and obstruction of justice for his work with a charity in Khartoum, Sudan, that prosecutors said was suspected of funding international terrorism. Siljander served one year in prison.

Lobbyists in general prefer not to register under the foreign agents law because its requirements are so much more demanding, making their activities more open to public scrutiny.

The Justice Department, for example, requires those who register as lobbyists on behalf of foreign governments or parties to detail the home addresses of lobbyists and descriptions of all receipts, payments, political contributions and details about any lectures, emails, pamphlets or press releases they create.

Lobbying records filed in the U.S. Senate, in contrast, such as the ones describing payments to the Podesta Group and Mercury by the European Centre, are far less detailed.

The Justice Department's own published guidelines describe foreign political parties as covered under the law.

Podesta's firm has previously registered its activities with the Justice Department over its work for Albania, the Republic of Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, India, Japan, Kenya, Kosovo, the Maldives, Moldova, Morocco, Somalia, South Korea, South Sudan, Vietnam and others. Mercury has disclosed to the Justice Department its work on behalf of government interests in the Cayman Islands, Nigeria, Qatar, Somalia, Turkey, one of the United Arab Emirates, Uganda and others.

___

Associated Press writers Ted Bridis and Maria Danilova contributed to this story.

Above is from:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ap-sources-manafort-tied-to-undisclosed-foreign-lobbying/ar-BBvJ0rk?ocid=spartandhp

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.