This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Illinois School Board Journal
May-June 2000

Under the big dome: The Capitol circus

by Ben Schwarm

Ben Schwarm is an IASB director of governmental relations.

It seemed like a simple concept. A school superintendent had an idea for legislation that would allow a school board to amend a tax levy. School districts adopt their levies before all of the information is available regarding the EAV and the equalization multiplier. Often the application of the multiplier lowers the rate and causes the district to come up short on the local funds necessary for meeting the school budget. A simple change in legislation would allow a school district to amend the tax levy to cover any revenue shortfall. For accountability reasons, the change could not increase the voter-approved tax rate, and all of the public notice and hearing procedures would still be applicable. There were no known opponents to the concept.

However, nothing is simple in the Illinois General Assembly. Just ask Don Frailey, superintendent at Roseville C.U. District 200. He brought his idea to the School Management Alliance lobbyists this spring and asked for help getting the bill moving in the Capitol.

Frailey met with his state representative in the district office to inquire about having the bill introduced. He then came down to Springfield to testify before the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee. He returned to Springfield to testify before the Senate Education Committee. He came down to Springfield yet again to meet with all of the members of the Senate Education Committee after the committee decided not to take action the first time the bill was heard. In between all of the superintendent's meetings, the Alliance lobbyists had worked the rules committees in both chambers to have the bill released from those gate-keepers that were holding them up, and had worked each member of both education committees to explain the objective of the bill.

It's all connected

All of this for a simple bill that eventually passed the House 111-4 and passed the Senate 50-6.

So what goes on behind the scenes when an issue like the school breakfast mandate is at stake, or something as colossal as the state budget? Here's what: a lot of research, many heated discussions, much ego stroking, and strategies for legislators and lobbyists to save face politically. If you are really lucky, legislators will actually consider the merits of your bill before taking a vote. Don't count on that, though.

It is important to remember that nothing happens in Springfield in a vacuum. It's like my hometown, everything (or everyone) is, somehow, related to everything (or everyone) else.

This spring I attended several IASB division meetings where I presented a legislative panel. In the middle of my remarks about the state budget process I would state that the most significant step toward a budget compromise had nothing to do with money. It had to do with guns.

After acknowledging the quizzical looks on the faces of audience members, I explained last December's special session on the Safe Neighborhoods Act and how the Republicans in the Senate were put on the spot by the Governor. The intent was to pass the Safe Neighborhood Act again. The original bill was struck down by the courts because it violated the single subject rule. That happens when legislators lump together non-related items in the same bill, usually putting unpopular items together with "can't miss" issues in order to ensure passage. Most components of the Safe Neighborhoods Act were agreed upon. However, the penalty for illegal possession of a firearm was being debated. Some legislators thought it should be a felony in all cases. Others thought that a felony conviction was too harsh under certain circumstances and that a misdemeanor offense was sufficient. In an election year, no legislator wanted to be branded as anything less than "tough on crime." No agreement was reached in last fall's veto override session.

Guns and money

So the governor, who was pushing for a felony provision, forced the issue by calling a special session of the legislature in December. Being called into the Capitol by Governor Ryan during the holiday season (when many members had vacation plans) did not sit too well with many legislators. Having the governor make a stop in their legislative districts to bring pressure to change their votes on the gun possession penalty was also not well received by senators. The issue was not resolved last December, as the Republican-controlled Senate stood firm on the gun possession issue.

So, how does this relate to the budget? The governor proposes the budget in Illinois and meets with the legislative leaders to reach a final budget compromise. This year, for many reasons (not the least of which are the tax and fee increases from last year and the brewing drivers' license scandal), the governor needed to pass a budget with a lot of political plums and to get the legislature out of town on time. There was no way the Senate was going to approve a governor-supported budget while the gun issue was still hanging overhead. The threat of calling another special session on crime issues even closer to the November election made the Senate leadership a little bit anxious. The budget was great leverage for the Senate Republicans to use to keep the governor in line. Governor Ryan would have to sign off on a gun possession compromise before any budget was agreed to by the Senate president.

For most of the spring session, there was little mention of the gun issue in public. Believe me, it was often the topic of discussion behind the scenes. Then, magically, an agreement was reached on the Safe Neighborhoods Act one week before the scheduled adjournment date. At the risk of over-simplifying, the agreement was that if a gun was loaded and could reasonably be accessed by the person driving a car, the offense would be a felony. If not, the offense would be a misdemeanor. This compromise found favor with those who were worried that a law abiding hunter could end up with a record as a convicted felon, but yet would be tough on "gang-bangers" who were planning a drive-by shooting. The agreement was put into bill form and was approved easily by both chambers.

Fighting a mandate

The state budget came together rather quickly after that. The General Assembly adjourned its spring session this year earlier than it had any time in the last 100 years.

The Alliance worked on an issue much smaller in scale, but with a similar, storied life. The school breakfast mandate bill was introduced last year. In May 1999, Alliance lobbyists met with proponents of the bill that would have required all school districts to offer a school breakfast program and required certain school districts to offer a school breakfast and lunch program throughout the summer. The Alliance opposed the mandate but offered alternative language (along with the state board of education) to establish financial incentives for school districts to begin a breakfast program instead of making it a state requirement. This was rejected by the proponents at that time. Several meetings occurred over the next ten months. Finally, in April 2000 an agreement was reached. The incentive language was approved and has been sent to the governor.

Election politics

The breakfast bill was caught up in election year politics (the bill's sponsor was in the midst of a tough primary election battle that she eventually lost). It was the number one legislative objective of the spring for a couple of the bill's proponents, was championed by the deputy governor for education, and became an agenda item of the state board of education.

You can see how the issue becomes less about the merits of the bill and much more involved in political maneuvering.

The final resolution of this issue is potentially positive. It increases participation in breakfast programs in areas where it is most needed and supported locally. If only the proponents had not "dug in" for so long, this program could have already been in existence for a year, instead of just now arriving on the governor's desk. The political posturing was deemed necessary by the proponents. They had to fight a tough battle for their constituency, but when their issue was destined for defeat, they needed something (a compromise bill) in the end to show for their work.

Such is the atmosphere under the big top, er, I mean dome, of the Capitol. The legislative process is like a shell game. It's like a roller coaster. Heck, it's like a whole amusement park.

But nothing is ever simple.