The Koch Brothers and Public Lands in Utah

 

Above is from:  http://cjonline.com/blog-post/keri/2016-09-05/kochs-and-public-lands

Belvidere alderman proposing new city police station

•  

• 

 

• By Susan Vela
  Staff writer

   

   

• |

  Purchase this Photo

  The Belvidere-Boone County Public Safety Building on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2016, in Belvidere. MAX GERSH/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER/RRSTAR.COM

• 

  By Susan Vela
  Staff writer

  Posted Sep. 4, 2016 at 12:00 PM

• 

  Zoom

  |

  Purchase this Photo

  The Belvidere-Boone County Public Safety Building on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2016, in Belvidere. MAX GERSH/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER/RRSTAR.COM

  

  

  

• By Susan Vela
  Staff writer

  Posted Sep. 4, 2016 at 12:00 PM

  BELVIDERE — Alderman George Crawford’s proposal for the city to build its own police station separate from the Boone County Public Safety Building could get snuffed quickly.

  For several weeks, health problems have prevented the 4th Ward alderman from making formal presentations to the Committee of the Whole about the benefits of the department and its 43 officers having their own home.

  Also, some elected officials, including Boone County Sheriff Dave Ernest, are promising firm opposition.

  “I’m very surprised and somewhat confused,” Ernest said. “Working together (and) being a partner only makes sense. These days, the regional approach is much more preferred. Ultimately, all our resources are being cut. It’s nice to be able to share those.

  “We have to live within our means.”

  The county spends about $1.5 million a year, with roughly half of the dollars coming from city coffers, for maintenance, operation and staffing required for the 41-year-old Public Safety Building, 615 N. Main St.

  It houses the Belvidere Police Department, Boone County Sheriff’s Office, Boone County Coroner’s Office and a dispatch center that serves both the city and county.

  Crawford said he’d rather the city have its independence, especially as it pertains to the dispatch center.

  “It would be better with our own police station," Crawford said. "I’m not saying totally break away from the county. We could pay them to use 911."

  Crawford’s proposal is preliminary. He hasn’t chosen a location. There are no designs. He’s not sure how much it would cost.

  Even if the city moves into the planning stages, Budget and Finance Officer Becky Tobin said the city can't afford to build.

  “We would not have the means," she said. "We would have to sell bonds in order to fund something like that.”

  Crawford has at least one supporter on City Council.

  “I thought it would be a good idea,” said Ald. John Sanders, 5th Ward, declining further comment.

  Others prefer a more cautionary approach.

  “I want to see his information first,” Ald. Clayton Stevens, 1st Ward, said.

  Boone County and Belvidere have severed other government partnerships. Boone County Board members voted 8-4 in February to give the city a 90-day notice to pull out from a decades-long agreement to jointly plan for economic development and other planning and zoning matters.

  Belvidere Police Chief Jan Noble said he’d prefer the Boone County Public Safety Building expand than the city build a police station.

Now, the police agency’s patrol division and community policing coordinator are downstairs. The administrative, investigative and support staff portions are upstairs. Half of the sheriff's 119-employee staff work out of the courthouse basement.

“We have a very fragmented control of our employees,” Noble said. “We believe it could stand greater improvement. We just need more room.”

But in 2008, voters twice rejected tax increases to support a Public Safety Building expansion.

Boone County Administrator Ken Terrinoni said he’ll take a wait-and-see approach.

“It would be premature to comment,” he said. “We really need to visit with Belvidere officials and see what their goal is by proposing this.”

Susan Vela: 815-987-1392; svela@rrstar.com; @susanvela

 

Above is from:  http://www.rrstar.com/news/20160904/belvidere-alderman-proposing-new-city-police-station

RRStar: Agenda items at Belvidere & Boone County Governments

•  

• By Staff Reports
  Rockford Register Star

  Posted Sep. 5, 2016 at 6:00 AM

  In an effort to shed more light on what local government boards are up to each week, the Register Star will publish a brief look at key items up for consideration by elected bodies.

  Belvidere City Council: Aldermen will convene at 7 p.m. Tuesday at Council Chambers, 401 Whitney Blvd., to discuss an ordinance establishing the city clerk’s salary as $66,356 in 2017, $67,020 effective May 1, 2018, $67,690 effective May 1, 2019, and $68,367 effective May 1, 2020.

  Boone County Board: The Planning, Zoning and Building Committee will meet at 6 p.m. Wednesday at 1212 Logan Ave. to discuss the Angelic Organics Association of Caledonia requesting a special-use permit to operate a learning center.

Election/Retention of Illinois Supreme Court Justices

 

Just Under Half of U.S. States Elect their Supreme Court Justices
Different Procedures for Selection, Retention, and Terms

The Illinois Supreme Court is the last stop for many of the state's most controversial issues. From pension payments to redistricting reform, the Court's influence is undeniable. In order to better understand the makeup of this important part of the Illinois judicial system, ICPR's research team looked into how U.S. states select and retain their Supreme Court Justices, and how long they are asked to serve.
Selection
The Illinois Supreme Court is made up of seven Justices who are elected from five districts in the state. By law, three of the Justices are always elected from the Cook County District. The other four Justices come from four districts outside of Cook County. Additionally, Illinois is one of 22 states to select their Justices in elections, but one of only of four states to do so with district-based rather than statewide elections. Louisiana, Mississippi, and Kentucky also use district-based elections.
District-based elections date back to the 1848 Illinois Constitution. By 1870, amendments to the Constitution increased the size of the Illinois Supreme Court from three to seven Justices. In 1964, under the administration of Governor Otto Kerner Jr., the makeup, retention, and terms of the Illinois Supreme Court were significantly changed and approved by Illinois voters. The term length of Justices increased from 9 to 10 years, and retention elections were introduced. The same provision reduced the number of judicial districts from seven to five, but added a clause requiring three of the seven Justices to be elected from from Cook County. Mandating a single District to have a set proportion of the Court's members is not a practice used by any other states.

Supreme Court Selection Processes in U.S. States

Compiled by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform

28 states use appointments to select Justices. Usually, the appointment decision is left to the Governor, but Virginia and South Carolina grant that power to state legislators instead. All states that rely on appointments also use a nominating commission before and/or a confirmation vote afterwards. Nominating commissions vary widely across states. Some are made up of existing state agencies, while others have specific membership requirements. The confirmation vote usually occurs in the State Senate, but some states, like Connecticut, require confirmations in both chambers.
Retention
Members of the Illinois Supreme Court can only keep their positions by winning retention elections. Retention elections are yes/no referendums on the justice’s performance. An incumbent Justice simply requires a yes-vote majority to stay in power. Retention elections, unlike Illinois’ unique selection process, are common. 20 states use some form of retention election.

Supreme Court Retention Processes in U.S. States

Compiled by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform

As an example, most retention elections occur in states where Justices were appointed to the Court. Certain states send Justices back to the Governor, commission, or General Assembly for reassessment at the end of their term. New Hampshire and Massachusetts do not reassess their judicial selections, as their Justices are permitted to serve until the mandatory retirement age of 70. Rhode Island is the only state that grants their Justices a genuine life term.
Terms
The term length for Justices in Illinois is 10 years, which is fairly common. Nearly half the country uses term lengths of 8 or 10 years. All states have term limits between 6 and 14 years, except for the three aforementioned New England states and New Jersey. New Jersey is an outlier when it comes to term lengths. After being appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate, Justices are given a provisionary term of 7 years. Upon reappointment by the governor and reconfirmation by the senate, Justices are granted a second term lasting until the mandatory retirement age of 70.

Supreme Court Term Lengths in U.S. States

Compiled by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform

How Illinois Compares
Overall, Illinois' selection and retention procedures for Supreme Court Justices are unlike most other states in two key ways. First, Illinois elects Supreme Court Justices in District Elections rather than Statewide Elections. This is only done by three other states in the nation. Furthermore, Illinois requires that three of its seven Justices come from Cook County, a specific designation based on geography. This is not a practice used by any other state. Secondly, Illinois uses retention elections rather than competitive elections to retain its Justices. Most other states that require competitive elections to select Justices also require competitive elections to retain them. Taking these two issues into consideration, the question remains as to whether or not these procedures may have an impact on major and controversial decisions facing Illinois.
We would like to hear from you! Do you think the current Illinois Supreme Court selection and retention procedures are the best for our state? Send your comments to outreach@ilcampaign.org or reply to this email.
Contact: Sarah Brune at 312-436-1274 or sarah@ilcampaign.org

Same-Day Voter Registration at Issue in Illinois Lawsuit

 

• By sophia tareen, associated press

CHICAGO — Sep 4, 2016, 10:32 AM ET

A federal lawsuit has raised questions about whether Illinois' new Election Day voter registration rules are constitutional, a situation that could complicate how polling sites are run this November.

Illinois tested same-day registration in the 2014 governor's race, with all election authorities required to offer it in at least one location. It was popular, with long lines on Election Night, particularly in Chicago. When lawmakers made same-day registration permanent the next year, they expanded it, ordering highly populated areas to make it available at all polls.

That change is at the heart of a federal lawsuit brought by Republicans, who argue it's an unfair and unequal system because voters in less populated and GOP-leaning areas don't have equal access. They're asking a judge to end all precinct-level Election Day registration, which would impact voters in 21 of 102 counties and five cities: Chicago, Aurora, Rockford, Bloomington and East St. Louis.

"It seemed obviously unfair to skew election results in this way," said Jacob Huebert, an attorney with an organization representing a north-central Illinois Republican congressional candidate and party committee. "The purpose is obviously to boost Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout."

Democrats dismissed the allegations on turnout, and voters' rights groups have fought back. Five, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, filed a brief in court Wednesday, suggesting such a change in a presidential-election year would create chaos and "leave thousands of people unable to vote," Colleen Connell, executive director of the ACLU of Illinois, said in a statement.

The next court hearing is Sept. 27, though the judge could rule earlier.

An injunction wouldn't impact same-day registration offered at major sites like county clerk offices, according to the lawsuit. But fewer sites could again mean longer lines, delayed turnout results and confusion since poll-level Election Day registration was allowed in the March primary and more than 110,000 Illinois residents signed up.

More than a dozen states, including Wisconsin and Colorado, offer same-day registration. In Illinois, November will be the first general election where Illinois' new rules will apply.

Democrats, who controlled the House, Senate and governor's office when same-day registration was approved, say the extension was done to improve voter access efforts and counter Republican-led efforts in other states they say curb eligibility, like voter ID laws. Democrats also questioned the intent of the lawsuit.

"It's a typical attempt at voter suppression and they're grasping at straws," said Steve Brown, a spokesman for Michael Madigan, the House speaker who serves as state Democratic Party leader.

To offer same-day registration, jurisdictions must have over 100,000 people, like 20 counties and five cities do, or use electronic poll books like Grundy County.

State Board of Election officials named in the lawsuit declined to comment on pending litigation.

Legal and political experts question the timing of the lawsuit, which is so close to the election, as well as its backers. The Illinois Policy Institute's legal arm, the Liberty Justice Center, is arguing the lawsuit. First-term Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner's foundation has donated to the group and some in his administration previously worked there. Rauner's spokeswoman didn't return a request for comment.

Law professor Ann Lousin at John Marshall Law School in Chicago called it a "very good" constitutional case but with an "odd" twist as it seeks to end same-day registration at all polls instead of expanding it statewide.

"They don't usually ask the court to take away the benefit from the other guy," she said.

Patrick Harlan, a truck driver and Knox County tea party candidate facing an uphill battle in trying to unseat two-term Democratic U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos, brought the lawsuit with the Crawford County Republican Central Committee in southeastern Illinois. Neither county has Election Day registration at polls.

Huebert explained that they didn't want to add costs for county clerks in smaller areas, and that the timing was due to when the issue came to their attention.

"It's just not fair. We have to make it fair for all," Harlan said.

Above is from:  http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/day-voter-registration-issue-illinois-lawsuit-41858186

The Big Lie About Donald Trump’s Tax Returns

Judd Legum

Editor-In-Chief, ThinkProgress

7 hrs ago3 min read

The Big Lie About Donald Trump’s Tax Returns

If you want the truth, listen to his accountants.

Mike Pence made news on NBC’s Meet The Press when he said that “Donald Trump and I are both going to release our tax returns.” Pence said that he would be releasing his returns in the next week and Trump would release his returns “at the completion of an audit.”

Trump is the first major candidate since Richard Nixon who has refused to release his tax returns, and the excuse of an “audit” has been a consistent refrain. It was repeated by Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, in an appearance Sunday morning.

Hillary Clinton has 15 years of tax returns available for download online.

It’s worth noting that the existence of an audit, according to the IRS, does not preclude the release of tax returns. In fact, it actually makes the release of returns less risky. The primary issue with making your tax returns public is triggering an audit. Trump doesn’t have to be worried about that.

But there is a bigger problem with the Trump campaign’s argument that all his returns are under audit: It’s not true.

The truth is disclosed in a letter from his accountants that was published to the Trump campaign website in March. It reveals that Trump’s returns from 2008 and prior are not under audit and have been “administratively closed” by the IRS.

So when Trump and his campaign staff say they are not releasing his taxes because they are under audit, that’s not true. None of his taxes from 2008 or prior are currently under audit, and yet Trump still hasn’t released those returns.

It’s also worth noting that nothing in the letter from his accountants advises him not to release his tax returns.

Trump’s tax advisers do note that in a “sense” the “pending examinations are continuations of prior, closed examinations.” But this fiction would justify perpetual non-disclosure of Trump’s returns.

Trump, apparently, is audited every year. He is currently arguing that the audit of his 2015 return precludes the release of his 2002 return, even though it is not under audit. Under this theory, even if the 2015 audit is closed, his upcoming 2016 audit would preclude the release of all his returns from 2002 to present.

Trump has also not addressed at all why he’s not releasing returns prior to 2002.

Trump also is reluctant to reveal even basic information about his taxes, such as his overall tax rate. Asked in a May interview about his tax rate, Trump recoiled. “It’s none of your business,” he snapped.

A few days ago, Eric Trump — Donald’s son and a close adviser — said it would be “foolish” for his father to ever release his taxes.

This point of view doesn’t seem consistent with someone who ever intended on making any of his tax returns public — at least not before election day. But one thing should be clear: It has nothing to do with an audit.

Above is from:  https://thinkprogress.org/the-big-lie-about-donald-trumps-tax-returns-585aa23bf529#.x08wpq845

No labor 'Turnaround' a year later for Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner

 

Delving into whether Rauner’s agenda would work and its chances at approval

Published: Saturday, Sept. 3, 2016 11:22 p.m. CDT

 

By KEVIN P. CRAVER kcraver @shawmedia.com

A McHenry County Board vote last year to approve a symbolic resolution to support Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner’s “Turnaround Agenda” became a major legal weight around the board’s neck.

Local labor unions that call Rauner’s support for right-to-work laws an assault on the working class protested the vote, and one union took the County Board to court, alleging that board members who met with Rauner before the vote violated the Open Meetings Act. While the County Board settled the lawsuit and revoked its symbolic resolution, another headache continued in the form of a state investigation, sparked by that very same union, into whether board members work enough to qualify for their pensions.

Of all the facets to the agenda on which Rauner ran in 2014, the ones seeking to curtail collective bargaining and reform prevailing wage laws are by far the most contentious, especially in a state like Illinois where public-sector unions wield tremendous political clout. That clout, and the Democratic Party holding supermajorities in both houses of the General Assembly, make these proposed changes problematic at best.

Politics aside, would these proposals work and provide tax relief, and do they have a chance of approval? The answer, of course, depends on who you ask.

What it means

Rauner’s proposal would allow for the creation of right-to-work laws at the local level through “employee empowerment zones” that would give workers – public sector, private or both – the right to voluntarily join or refrain from joining a union, and would forbid requiring joining or paying union-related dues as a condition for employment. The zones either could be approved by the local government or by referendum. It also would allow local governments to exclude a number of topics from collective bargaining.

Another proposal would repeal the state’s prevailing wage law, a minimum hourly wage set by the Illinois Department of Labor, based on trade, for any building project undertaken by a local government. These rates typically are set to match union scale.

To Anders Lindall, spokesman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, Rauner’s initiatives aren’t about helping taxpayers, but gutting organized labor and lowering wages. The council represents about 75,000 employees statewide.

“Having a voice at work through their union allows public service workers at the city and county level to advocate for enough resources to serve their community, to have a voice to keep political interference out of public service, and to have the tools they need to do their jobs, whether it’s responding to emergencies, protecting public health and safety, or teaching kids. If you’re talking about silencing the voices of public service workers in these helping professions, that is what’s at stake,” Lindall said.

Others see it differently. Michael Lucci, vice president of policy for the conservative-leaning Illinois Policy Institute, said that data concludes that right-to-work laws have increased wages in the three neighboring states – Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan – that have implemented it. About half the states in the union have right-to-work laws.

“The normal criticism of right-to-work says, ‘If you adopt right-to-work, then boom, wages just fall.’ There’s absolutely no evidence of that, and in particular, in the three states around us that have enacted right-to-work, personal income increased faster than in Illinois,” Lucci said.

Besides the long shot that a Democratic legislature would even entertain the idea, there are legal roadblocks. Attorney General Lisa Madigan ruled that federal labor law allows only states and not local governments to enact such policies. The Lincolnshire Village Board created a right-to-work zone anyway and was promptly sued by a number of unions. The lawsuits are still ongoing – the village is getting free legal representation from a law firm funded by the Illinois Policy Institute.

Many of the 24 members of the McHenry County Board, all Republicans, have cited both union contracts and prevailing wage as roadblocks when it comes to cutting costs and reducing the overall budget. The board and its associated bodies, a sliver of the 7,000 units of local government in Illinois, make up about 10 percent of a resident’s property-tax bill.

More than half of county government’s workforce, which has steadily decreased since the Great Recession, is unionized through 10 separate bargaining units. Besides giving those employees benefits and raises, board members give their non-unionized workers a level of parity, lest they be convinced to organize as well. In Illinois, public employees are automatically unionized if a majority of workers in an office fill out the authorization forms, a process known as card check.

As for prevailing wage, board members allege that it jacks up the cost to taxpayers for projects. For the past three years, the County Board has symbolically voted against accepting the annual prevailing wage list mandated by the state. But while rejecting the schedule carries no penalty, willingly paying workers less than prevailing wage carries a Class A misdemeanor and fines – under the law, the elected officials face the charge, while the body, meaning the taxpayers, pay the fine.

Prevailing wage is no joke, said County Board member Michael Walkup, who is the Republican candidate for board chairman. During the April 2015 debate about supporting the Turnaround Agenda, Walkup brought up a project during his time on the Crystal Lake Park District Board to build a brick restroom at Veterans Acres Park that ended up costing $250,000. To put it in perspective, Walkup said, the quote he got to rebuild his entire home after a fire came in about the same.

“Prevailing wage probably doubles your labor costs. A true prevailing wage would be what the overall price is in the marketplace when you consider everything, but we’re not allowed to consider everybody – we only can compare union scale,” said Walkup, R-Crystal Lake.

Conflicting studies exist on prevailing wage’s effect on the bottom line.

Lucci said that prevailing wage typically increases costs by about 6 percent, but that 6 percent of the $11 billion or so spent on public construction in Illinois adds up to $660 million. The number, he said, also doesn’t include increased workers compensation costs.

But a new report released last week by the liberal-leaning Illinois Economic Policy Institute casts doubt on the allegation that prevailing wage is artificial or jacks up costs. The report analyzed wages in a number of Illinois counties bordering other states and concluded that the prevailing wage rates are not inflated, but match local rates. Local market conditions by far have more of an effect than prevailing wage, according to institute Policy Director Frank Manzo IV, who wrote the analysis.

“The state’s prevailing wage law prevents government from undercutting local standards, supports in-state contractors, provides a competitive level of compensation to workers, and promotes apprenticeship training. Illinois should continue this high-road public policy,” Manzo wrote.

Same old situation?

The next chance of any sort of deal being struck on any portion of Rauner’s agenda will be after the Nov. 8 election, when the six-month temporary state budget is set to expire.

Rauner’s main hope for getting some of the Turnaround Agenda approved could materialize as part of a “grand bargain” on a budget. Rauner has said he would entertain increasing taxes like Democratic lawmakers want, only if accompanied by meaningful pro-business and pro-taxpayer reforms he said are necessary to reverse Illinois’ dire economic fortunes.

David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, said he is not optimistic about a deal being struck. With about two-thirds of General Assembly seats uncontested in this election, he does not see the current political calculus changing in a way that would favor either Rauner or House Speaker Michael Madigan by giving him enough of a cushion to override a gubernatorial veto and take the governor out of the equation entirely.

“I think they’re going to have to come to some agreement with the governor. I just don’t see a situation where the Democrats have either the numbers or the discipline to completely ignore the governor and think they can override vetoes,” Yepsen said.

There are, of course, other aspects of the Turnaround Agenda, such as workers’ compensation and tort liability reform, a statewide property-tax freeze, term limits and redistricting reform. But many of those are just as politically unpalatable to many General Assembly members. The Illinois Supreme Court last month slapped down a citizen initiative for a constitutional amendment to take the power to draw legislative districts away from lawmakers.

An outcome of this, Yepsen said, could be that the temporary budget deal that ended a year-long budget impasse between Rauner and Democratic lawmakers expires, and turns out to be nothing more than an intermission.

“With all the spending and rhetoric, we could be right back in the same gridlocked position,” Yepsen said.

 

Above is from:  http://www.nwherald.com/2016/09/01/no-labor-turnaround-a-year-later-for-illinois-gov-bruce-rauner/aywds0z/?page=4