Legislative Committee Feb. 2010 Meeting Packet by NapervilleChamberofCommerce

Legislative Committee Monday, February 8, 2010 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. Chairman: Sean Sebold Vice-Chairman: Russ Whitaker Hotel Arista 2139 CityGate Lane Naperville, IL 60563 MEETING AGENDA

This Legislative Committee is non-partisan and issue oriented only.

Welcome and introductions

11:30 a.m.

Chair Report: Minutes Approval

p. 1

New Business: State & Local:

CALL TO ACTION: Illinois Fair Map Initiative Constitutional Amendment: Q & A About Fair Map Amendment p. 2-4 Redistricting Reform Comparison p. 5 State Journal-Register (12/30/09) “Give Voters...”p. 6 Chicago Sun-Times (12/4/09) p. 7 The Southern Illinoisan (12/15/09) p. 8-9 Fair Map Presentation p. 10-21 DuPage and Will Petitions p.22-25

Jan Czarnik, Exec. Director, Ill. League of Women Voters

INFORMATIONAL BRIEFING: Naperville Voter Education League: Municipal Term Limits & Districts: Presentation p. 26-38

Gerry Cassioppi Bill Eagan

State:

Springfield Update: Pensions & General Revenue: Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, January 2010 Update

p. 39-56

Civil Justice: ChicagoBusiness.com (2/5/09) p. 57-58 Statement from Illinois Hospital Association p. 59 On Illinois Supreme Court Med. Liability Ruling Updates: Reference: City Of Naperville Budget Articles: Daily Herald (1/26/10), “Naperville explores…” p. 60 Naperville Sun (1/26/10), “More taxes, fees…” p. 61 Naperville Sun (1/26/10), “Pradel: Naperville…” p. 62 Daily Herald (1/26/10), “Mayor: Not business…” p. 63 Politco, (2/2/10), “President Obama and U.S. Chamber...” p. 64-68 Adjournment

1:00 p.m.

Save the Date: Monday, May 17 – Wednesday, May 19, America’s Small Business Summit 2010 – Washington D.C.

Advancing Dialogue. Advocating Progress.

Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee Minutes - DRAFT Monday, January 11, 2010 - 11:30 a.m. Hotel Arista Chairman: Sean Sebold Vice-Chair: Russ Whitaker Chair Report: Sebold called the meeting to order and conducted introductions. A motion to approve the minutes for the December meeting was offered, seconded and passed. New Business: Federal Update (F): Congresswoman Judy Biggert was introduced to provide an update of the closing of the first session of the 111th Congress. Her comments addressed the status of legislation dealing with taxes, health care, and cap and trade. Additionally Mrs. Biggert spoke to her efforts to bring regional consensus on how to deal with the Asian Carp situation in the I&M canal. Informational Briefing: Financial Condition and Forecast of School Districts 203 & 204 (S) – Dave Holm, Assistant Superintendent, Business for District 204 and Dave Zager, Assistant Superintendent Finance for District 203 provided the Committee with a joint update on the financil health of the school districts. In FY 2009, the State owed District 203 an average of $3,260,000 and was 90 days late in their quarterly payment. District 204 was owed $5,123,791 and received their quarterly payment on average 94.4 days late. Currently in FY 2010, the State is over 103+ days past due on their payments and owes District 203 $7,100,000 and District 204 $10,383,469 as of the presentation. School districts are tax capped entities. The cap, limits the ability of the taxing jurisdiction to raise taxes by 5% or CPI, whichever is less. The modest rates of inflation recently have limited the ability of school districts to raise revenue to meet their operational obligations. Members of the Committee asked various questions of the speakers. During discussion it was noted that the Boards of Education have not endorsed public pension reform as a legislative priority. A motion was made that a Taskforce be constituted to study the impact that statewide school funding reform(s) would have on the local school districts, the long-term financial and tax plans of both districts; the impact the upcoming employment contracts will have; the impact pension reform would have and other subjects determined by the Taskforce. The motion was seconded and approved. Annual Review of Legislative Committee Principles and Framework & Annual Review of Priorities and Initiatives: Sean Sebold conducted the annual review of the Chamber’s Legislative principles and priorities.1 They are: 1. Taxation: We support and promote a competitive and fair tax climate. 2. Education and Workforce Development: We support and promote an education system that produces and sustains a qualified workforce. 3. Transportation Infrastructure: We support and promote improvements to our region’s transportations infrastructure. 4. Regulations, Employment Requirements and Business Burdens: We support and promote a competitive business climate. 5. Civil Justice: We support and promote transformation of the civil justice system. 6. Global Commerce: We support and promote free and fair trade in a global economy. 7. Technology and Innovation: We support and promote incentives for investing in research, development and technology. Updates: Patrick Skarr provided the Committee with an update of the reference letters in the packet regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, City of Naperville Budget and encouraged Members to apply to be on the Naperville Area Chamber Political Action Committee Board of Directors. Adjournment At 1:12 p.m., a motion was made to adjourn, seconded and passed unanimously. Minutes respectfully submitted by Patrick Skarr. 1

1 of 68

Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce 2010 Legislative Committee Framework, positions and Initiatives (1/2010) http://bit.ly/9znwKt

SOME ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ILLINOIS FAIR MAP AMENDMENT INITIATIVE & HOW IT REFORMS REDISTRICTING IN ILLINOIS

What is redistricting? Redistricting is the process by which legislative maps are drawn after each decennial census. Since 2010 is a census year, state legislative and Congressional districts throughout the United States will be redrawn to reflect changes in population. The Brennan Center has published a thoughtful and accessible Citizens Guide to Redistricting. It is available on its website at http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/a_citizens_guide_to_redistricting/.

Why is Illinois’ process of redistricting ripe for reform? The current redistricting process is controlled by the legislative leaders of whichever political party is in power immediately following the census (taken every ten years). It is a secretive process which results in the almostͲ certain election of candidates favored by the political leaders in power. The Illinois legislature has complete control over drawing the boundaries of Illinois’ 59 legislative districts. Because of partisan gridlock, for the last thirty years a partisan name drawn from a hat determined which political party’s map would become the approved map from which all candidates for the General Assembly run for election or – in most instances Ͳ reelection.

Is there a better way to ensure a more transparent, less arcane process? The drafters of the Illinois Fair Map Amendment believe that there are a number of cornerstones to any reform effort: x x x

The Constitutional protections embodied in the Voting Rights Act must be preserved There must be independence in map making – politicians should not draw the lines; neither incumbency or a voter’s party history should be considered The process of redistricting must be transparent and open to the public. The public should be able to participate in the process.

Why are we trying redistricting reform via citizen initiative? Because the Illinois General Assembly has failed, despite the call to do so from many quarters, to agree on a best way to reform the current process.

2 of 68

The legislative article in the Illinois constitution (Article IV) is the only one that can be amended by citizen initiative and so offers a golden opportunity for voters to become involved in shaping an important aspect of representative government. The proposed amendment must be applicable to both the structure and procedure of the General Assembly. The Fair Map Amendment seeks to undo Ͳ by changing the composition of legislative districts Ͳ the structural nesting requirement currently in the Illinois Constitution. Nesting in Illinois results in two Representative districts nested (within the boundary) in one Senate legislative district. Under the Fair Map Amendment, the House and Senate districts would be drawn independent of each other. The Illinois Fair Map Amendment changes the procedure by which the General Assembly draws its legislative map after every tenͲyear census. Under the current system, redistricting is done by a bill, with both the Senate and the House passing the bill and sending it on to the Governor for signature.

How will the Illinois Fair Map change the way in which Illinois does redistricting? A. An Independent Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission (TRAC) is appointed by all current legislative leaders. There are very strict and specific criteria by which the leaders are bound when appointing members of TRAC. No current legislators or lobbyists may serve on TRAC. B. Maps drawn by TRAC are guided by stringent, specific and established criteria, in order of importance. C. The TRAC process is open and transparent with its meetings open to the public with 24 hours notice; the public is invited to submit maps to TRAC. It is likely that TRAC will consult with software vendors who have the capacity to draw maps based on the specific criteria. We expect that TRAC will consider dozens of possible maps from a variety of sources. D. TRAC will draw and submit a map to the Illinois Senate and another to the House of Representatives. If these first maps are not approved by a 2/3rd vote in either chamber, TRAC goes back to the map drawing board and submits another. If no map is approved by the first Monday in July, TRAC will approve one of the two previously submitted maps by the third Monday in July, and that map automatically becomes law. E. If TRAC fails to meet a deadline, a special master process is triggered and that master will file the final map.

Is there a document that helps me understand the differences between the current way redistricting is accomplished and what the Fair Map Amendment will do? Yes. Please refer to the Illinois Redistricting Process Comparison (attached).

How was the idea for the Illinois Fair Map Amendment developed? The amendment was based initially on a proposal recommended by Governor Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission which was chaired by former Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Collins. The amendment language was revised several times with input from the League of Women Voters of Illinois, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, Illinois Reform Commission members and others.

3 of 68

Why not Iowa? It is true that Iowa does redistricting by commission but the commission functions to advise the legislature and to draw draft lines for the legislature to accept, reject or modify. Additionally, Iowaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s geography and population are much different than that of Illinois.

How many other states conduct redistricting through an independent commission? Six â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Arkansas, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana and Washington.

How many signatures are required to ensure that the Fair Map Amendment gets onto the November 2, 2010 General Election ballot? Signatures equal to 8% of the total vote cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election must be collected, or nearly 300,000 valid signatures. The Fair Map Amendment organizers have targeted 500,000 as their goal to ensure that we reach the approximately 300,000 valid signatures required.

Why should I sign the petition? If you believe that in Illinois our elected leaders are too powerful, that partisan gridlock and not good public policy is all we get from those we elect, if you believe itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s time to reclaim our right to elect representatives of our choice, and if you believe in getting voters directly involved in reforming our state government, please sign the petition.

How can I help circulate a petition? Go the ILFairMap.com website where you can download a petition. Each petition is specific to an election authority so make sure you circulate the one from the correct election authority (either your county or in the case of a few communities, your city). Remember that the signatures you obtain on the petition must be from registered voters in that election authority. As a circulator, you need not be a registered voter but you must be at least 18, a resident of Illinois and a citizen of the United States. The petition must be copied front and back so that the language of the amendment is on the reverse side of the petition.

For more information, please contact The Illinois Fair Map Amendment Initiative c/o The League of Women Voters of Illinois 332 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1150 Chicago, Illinois 60604 www.ilfairmap.com ilfairmap@gmail.com 4 of 68

REDISTRICTING REFORM COMPARISON

CURRENT LANGUAGE

REFORM PROPOSAL 1.

CRITERIA:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Compact. Contiguous. Substantially equal population. Nested.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Compliance with Federal Laws, including providing the substantive protection of the Voting Rights Act. Contiguity. Substantially equal population. Compact. Follow geographic features and municipal boundaries. Nondiscrimination against any political party or group. Denested.

Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission. 9 members. 2 chosen by each legislative leader. Ninth member, who is the chair, chosen by the other members. No member can be a lobbyist, immediate family member, public or political official, contractor or employee of the State of Illinois.

WHO DRAWS:

Legislature.

WHO APPROVES:

Legislature by a majority vote, subject to approval by the Governor.

Legislative body that map affects (by a twothirds vote).

Legislative Redistricting Commission consisting of 8 members. 2 chosen by each leader and one of each leaderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s choices must be a sitting legislator. Tie breaker decided by picking name out of a hat.

Special Master chosen by two Supreme Court Justices (most Senior in each party). Special Master cannot be a lobbyist, immediate family member, public or political official, contractor or employee of the State of Illinois.

FAIL-SAFE PROVISION:

TRANSPARENCY:

Silent.

MINORITY PROTECTION:

Silent.

TIMELINE:

Process must finish by October 5.

Requires notice for meetings, data and documents to be made available to the public and at least 8 public hearings in at least 5 different geographic areas.

Specifically sets forth Federal law and the current language of the VRA as requirements. Hence, if the VRA is ever repealed, minority protection would remain.

Process must finish by September 5 30.of 68

Our Opinion: Give voters a say on remap amendment THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER Posted Dec 30, 2009 @ 12:05 AM IN THE SPRING of 2008, things appeared optimistic for those who had long hoped for in infusion of order into the chaotic system by which Illinois maps its legislative districts. Under that chaotic system, the party that won a lottery won the right to carve up the state to its demographic liking in 1981, 1991 and 2001. The winning party drew districts based on voting data, protecting its own incumbents while placing targeted office-holders from the opposite party into redesigned districts where reelection would be much more challenging. By a vote of 98-10, the Illinois House in April 2008 had approved a bill that would let voters in November decide whether to adopt a system aimed at forcing partisan politics out of the process. All that was needed was a three-fifths majority vote in the Illinois Senate to let voters decide at the polls. Unfortunately, then-Sen. President Emil Jones was not known as a reformer, and the bill never came up for a vote. SO WITH THE 2010 census upon us and a new legislative map due in 2011, Illinois voters again face the prospect of a deadlocked legislature forcing a lottery that awards district-drawing privileges to the winner. This time, however, voters don’t need to wait for lawmakers to give them the chance to vote on a more fair and sensible system. A coalition of civic and reform groups led by the League of Women Voters has begun a petition drive aimed at getting the Illinois Fair Map Amendment onto the November ballot. The amendment would require that legislative districts be drawn by an independent commission in a process open to the public. Currently, the process is conducted behind closed doors by legislators. The amendment calls for creation of districts that are contiguous and compact and, where possible, “follow visible geographic features and municipal boundaries.” TO GET ONTO the ballot, the amendment needs 280,000 signatures by April 1. To protect the petition against challenges, proponents are seeking 500,000 signatures. Supporters of the amendment decided on a citizen initiative because they don’t think the legislature will ever cede power on this issue. “Let me put it this way,” says Jan Czarnik, executive director of the League of Women Voters. “Do you think for a minute that (House Speaker Michael) Madigan is going to do anything that dilutes his power?” Even if the General Assembly were to pass some kind of redistricting reform, Czarnik and other backers of the amendment don’t believe lawmakers ever will remove either themselves or political considerations from the process. Given the state’s history of corruption and partisan bickering, we agree. THAT'S WHY we urge all readers of this piece to visit www.ilfairmap.com to learn more about the Illinois Fair Map Amendment. The site has petition forms that can be downloaded and information about participating in the petition drive. Under the current system, politicians in Illinois have been allowed to choose their voters by creatively drawing the districts best suited to them. We think voters should choose politicians, and we believe the voters deserve to have their say on the Illinois Fair Map Amendment in November. 6 of 68 Copyright 2009 The State Journal-Register. Some rights reserved

suntimes.com Member of Sun-Times Media

December 4, 2009

Illinois voters, prep your John Hancocks. Citizen petitions began circulating Thursday to fix the perverse way Illinois draws its state legislative districts -- a way that stacks the deck in elections in favor of incumbents. Don't be shy about signing on the dotted line. The goal is 500,000 signatures by April, enough to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot asking voters if they want to strip from legislators the power to draw legislative districts and give that power to an independent, bipartisan commission. Nine other states already do it this way. Fierce partisanship and incumbency protection now poison any honest effort at redistricting, a process done every 10 years, after the U.S. census is complete. Our state's politicized system frequently creates illogical, gerrymandered legislative districts that virtually guarantee re-election for incumbents. Ninety-eight percent of recent elections, in fact, were won by incumbents, according to the backers of this citizen initiative, including the League of Women Voters, the Better Government Association and a former member of the Illinois Reform Commission, a bipartisan group appointed by Gov. Quinn. This stark reality discourages both competitors and voters. Why vote if the outcome is preordained? It's hard to think of a single reason to preserve the current system and, fortunately, a growing number of legislators agree. Several redistricting reform plans are floating around Springfield, and a Senate committee has held several hearings on the topic, with plans to unveil a reform proposal next week. But if the Legislature is left to its own devices, even its best proposals inevitably will be watered down. It is simply in no incumbent legislator's self-interest to give up control over drawing the boundaries of his own district. He has too much to lose. For that reason, we wholeheartedly support this citizen initiative, known as the Illinois Fair Map Amendment. In brief, the proposed amendment would create a commission, with equal numbers of members picked by legislative leaders from both parties. To minimize political influence, the commission members could not have worked as a lobbyist or for the state for four years before being appointed and could not be elected to the General Assembly for 10 years after their service. Collectively, this eight-member group would pick a ninth member as chairman. The commission would draw up a map with compact and sensible boundaries, without regard to voting histories in existing districts, and submit it to the Legislature for a vote. This new system also would allow for significant public input and make transparency a top priority. It is not a perfect system but, on balance, it is vastly superior to what Illinois has done for the last 40 years -- let the pols gerrymander the map to protect their own jobs. If between now and April, the state Legislature manages to whip up a redistricting reform scheme that truly ends the political games, we'll wholeheartedly embrace that proposed constitutional amendment as well. But we've been to Springfield, where self-preservation is the first rule of the road. Our bet is on the Illinois Fair Map Amendment. Its backers call it a "citizens' movement to take back Illinois."

7 of 68

That sounds about right. For more details on the proposed redistricting reform plan, go to www.ilfairmap.com.

Guest Column: Redistricting is most important issue in state December 15, 2009 Opinions Page, The Southern Illinoisan by David Yepsen, Paul Simon Policy Institute Director, SIUC The single most important ethical reform Illinois could undertake is to eliminate the system that allows state lawmakers to draw their own legislative district lines. You can help make it happen. A group of reformers has started a petition drive to put such an initiative on the November ballot. They are asking voters to approve the Illinois Fair Map Amendment. It would create an independent commission to do the map making and take it away from statehouse political leaders operating behind closed doors in Springfield and Chicago. Why is this the most important governmental change that needs to be made in Illinois? Because redistricting problems sit at the core of every other reform and ethical issue facing the state. In Illinois, as in many other states, lawmakers and legislative leaders control the drawing of their own district lines. As a result, they create districts designed to protect themselves. It leads to problems. Think of it this way: If someone doesn’t think they can get fired, they can become arrogant, sloppy or lazy. Their logic becomes one of “who cares if this budget is a mess, no one is going to defeat me.” Or “who cares if I put a relative on the payroll, nobody can take me out.” The amendment would result in more turnover in the Legislature and lawmakers know it. More turnover will give more people, especially women and minorities, an opportunity to serve. New members would naturally mean more turnover in legislative leaders, too. The Paul Simon Public Policy Institute has offered one plan to repair this system. You can read about it on our website www.paulsimoninstitute.org. The Illinois Fair Map Amendment is another way to fix it. There’s no perfect way to do this but the goal has to be taking control of the crayons away from legislators when new maps are drawn and giving them to independent groups. Districts will be drawn in accordance with the federal Voting Rights Act, equality of population standards and requirements that districts be compact and contiguous. Some lawmakers say they plan to create a new system. But promising and delivering are two different things and legislators don’t always keep their promises.

8 of 68

Fortunately, the drafters of the Illinois Constitution saw how it might be difficult for legislators to do political surgery on themselves. They gave voters the ability to initiate and approve amendments relating to the “structural and procedural matters” of the General Assembly. But there’s only a narrow window open for voters to use this power. If they want a new system of drawing legislative district lines in place for the November 2012 elections, they must get it on the ballot in November 2010. That means they must get their petitions signed and returned by early May 1, 2010. That’s only a few months away. An initiative effort to change the Legislature is not a radical step. In 1980, a young activist named Pat Quinn used this power to enact what was dubbed the “cutback” amendment to reduce the size of the Legislature. Nor is this an effort by fringe groups. It is sponsored by the Illinois League of Women Voters, the Better Government Association, the Illinois Campaign for Political reform and individual members of the Illinois Reform Commission. Those are serious groups and reformers like Brad McMillan and Andy Shaw are serious people. You can do something, too. If you’d like more information on the Illinois Fair Map Amendment, you can go to www.ilfairmap.com or contact the League of Women Voters, 322 South Michigan, Suite 1150, Chicago, IL 60604. Or you can call them at 312-939-5935 312-939-5935 or e-mail them at ilfairmap@gmail.com. If you agree a change is in order, you can download petitions and instructions for your county or voting area and start getting them signed yourself. If nothing else you can download the petition yourself, sign it and have it notarized. Organizers of this effort feel they need 500,000 signatures to make sure they’ve got enough viable signatures to get this measure on the ballot. But follow the rules carefully. You can bet the powers that be will be fighting every step of the way to knock this idea off the ballot. Knocking people and ideas off the ballot is a rich tradition with some political types in Illinois.

9 of 68

Change the Culture

We have an opportunity to change the culture of corruption that haunts Illinois. For the last 3 decades, Illinois legislators have created their own safe districts – behind closed doors. The result is incumbent protection – and more of the same. For the first time in 10 years – we have the opportunity to unite as citizens and Take Back Illinois!

10 of 68

Background

Redistricting: the process of redrawing legislative districts. Occurs every 10 years, after the new census figures come out. Redistricting is done to “rebalance” the population equally into legislative districts. Legislative districts must be substantially equal in population, per the Illinois Constitution. Legislative districts must also represent the diversity of the state per federal law (Voting Rights Act). New Illinois legislative districts will take effect for the 2012 election.

Illinois’ Current Redistricting Process

Politicians have complete control over drawing the boundaries of Illinois’ legislative districts Maps are drawn by members of the legislature with few restrictions. Constitution only requires districts to be: compact, contiguous and substantially equal in population. If the parties in power cannot agree, the balance of power is determined, literally, by chance. In each of the last three decades, a draw from a hat has determined which political party would draw the map. Illinois is the only state in the nation with this “winner take all” approach. Both parties have benefited from the current system, but voters are not well served.

11 of 68

Current process is controlled by leaders and further entrenches those in power.

District lines are drawn by legislative leaders. Leaders become kingmakers. They draw maps, in private, with very few restrictions, usually benefiting incumbents. They use political data to draw “safe” districts that are not competitive. Legislative leaders can reward lawmakers loyal to them – or punish those who are not. This process further entrenches the power in the hands of the legislative leaders.

Creation of “safe” districts reduces competition and advantages incumbents.

Under the existing map drawn by politicians:

There have been 630 general elections for seats in the Illinois General Assembly.

Just 27 of those were decided by 5 percentage points or less – 4% of all races are “competitive”. In 275 of those races, almost 45% of all elections, there was no challenger at all.

There have been 547 general elections that included an incumbent.

The incumbent has won 536 of those races. Incumbent record is 536 wins, 11 loses. Incumbents have a 98% success rate under this map.

12 of 68

The Solution: A Fair Map

Illinois needs a new fair mapping process A fair map is the 1st step to take back Illinois from the politicians. It puts the power in the hands of the people, not the politicians

Reform groups and editorial boards agree: this process must be reformed!

“…the state’s redistricting process yields gerrymandered legislative maps and deprives Illinois voters of fair representation.” - Governor Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission “Illinois’ system is embarrassing and counter to the public’s interest.” -- Paul Simon Public Policy Institute “…(the current system) is a protection racket for incumbents. It needs to be fixed now.” - Chicago Tribune “our state’s politicized system leads to illogical, gerrymandered districts that all but guarantee re-election for many incumbents, discourage competition and further voter apathy.” - Chicago Sun-Times “Map drawing is where it all begins. If our legislators truly are committed to cleansing Illinois of its gamy reputation, they will push for a new mapping process now.” – Daily Herald

13 of 68

Cornerstones of Reform

Constitutional Protection for Voting Rights Act

Independence in map making Politicians should not draw lines. Incumbency should not be considered. Political data (voting history) should not be considered.

Transparency in process Process should be open to the public. Public should be able to participate.

Redistricting is a Constitutional issue. There are two ways to change the system.

Through the Legislature

Legislature can approve a constitutional amendment for the ballot.

Requires 3/5ths vote in House & Senate. Party in power will have to agree to change the system.

Through the Citizens

Citizens can approve a constitutional amendment for the ballot by Citizen Initiative. Many believe this is the only way reform will happen.

14 of 68

A Citizens Initiative

The Illinois Fair Map Amendment amends the Illinois Constitution to reform the state’s redistricting process. A Citizens’ Movement To Take Back Illinois

Illinois Fair Map Amendment

Places map drawing duties in the hands of an independent Commission. Allows de-nesting of House and Senate districts. Requires legislature to approve a map by 2/3rds majority. Removes Governor from the approval process. Increases public transparency. Requires public hearings. Requires public display of proposed maps. Allows public to submit maps to the Commission. Requires Commission to use neutral criteria that will remove political considerations from map drawing Amends Constitution to specifically protect minority voting rights Eliminates the hat draw provision and replaces it with a fair resolution to the map-making process.

15 of 68

How was the Proposal Developed?

We are a growing coalition which included input from:

Brennan Center, League of Women Voters, Change Illinois!, Reform Commission members and testimony from the Senate Redistricting Committee hearings

Based on the proposal put forward by Gov. Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission. Adjusted to meet legal and constitutional requirements for a Citizens’ Initiative.

Independent Commission will draw maps.

Establish Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission (TRAC).

Each legislative leader appoints 2 people.

In choosing, diversity of our State must be considered To maximize independence, significant limitations on TRAC

No current or former lobbyists or state employees (within last 4 years) No partisan political officeholder, party officeholder or family member of a legislator. TRAC members may not run for the General Assembly for 10 years – the duration of the map.

Ninth member – chairperson – chosen by original 8.

16 of 68

Process is Transparent and Open

TRAC meetings open to the public TRAC must make their census data – and their maps -- available to the public. Members of the public may submit maps to TRAC. TRAC shall hold at least 5 public hearings around the state prior to voting on any maps. TRAC must hold at least 3 additional hearings around the state after its preliminary approval of maps to be considered by the legislature.

Guided by clear & fair criteria: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Districts must comply with all federal laws – including the Voting Rights Act -- which is embodied in the Amendment. Districts shall be contiguous. Districts shall be substantially equal in population. Districts shall be compact. District boundaries shall follow visible geographic and municipal boundaries, to the extent practical. The map shall not be drawn to favor one party or another. Party registration, voting history or incumbency cannot be used to draw the maps, but may be used to evaluate. Allows “de-nesting” – Representative districts need not be contained within a single Senate district.

17 of 68

Approval of maps

TRAC may approve maps for consideration by the legislature by simple majority vote (5 of 9). Each chamber of the General Assembly may approve a TRAC provided map by 2/3rds vote.

Requires bipartisan support 2/3rds vote required to reduce partisanship in the process.

Governor is removed from the redistricting process.

The Process

TRAC provides a map to each chamber by the 3rd Monday in May.

A House map to the House. A Senate map to the Senate.

If first map is not approved, TRAC provides an alternative map by the 3rd Monday in June. If the alternative map is not approved, the TRAC will approve one of the two previously provided maps, and it will become law.

18 of 68

What if the process fails to work?

Fail safe provision: Not a drawing from a hat. If, for any reason, TRAC fails to meet a deadline: The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a Supreme Court judge of the other political party shall appoint a Special Master to draw the maps. Special Master bound by the same restrictions and criteria as TRAC Special Master must consider all plans submitted to the legislature by TRAC and comply with same criteria Special Master must file maps by September 30th.

Citizen Initiative Process

Petitions must be circulated with the question being proposed for the ballot. Requires a minimum of 300,000 signatures of registered voters to qualify for the ballot. (Our goal is 500,000) Petitions must be filed by first of May in 2010 to be on November 2010 ballot.

State Board of Elections will hear petition challenges. Amendment may be subject to challenge in Illinois Supreme Court.

Once on the ballot, the question must receive the support of either:

A majority of those voting in the election; or 3/5ths of those voting on the question.

19 of 68

It’s Up To Us. The People.

We have a chance for meaningful redistricting reform, but that window of opportunity is closing. Without change, party leaders will again draw the lines, pick their voters, solidify and enhance their power for the next decade.

Citizen Initiative is, realistically, the only way to change.

“Redistricting (reform) is as key to getting true political reform in this state as anything else on the table.” -- State Journal-Register

Put the Illinois Fair Map Amendment on the November, 2010 ballot

A Citizens Movement to Take Back Illinois. Sign the petition! Gather signatures on petitions. Educate friends, neighbors and community organizations about the importance of reform. Raise money to fund this program.

20 of 68

Visit our website www.ILFairMapAmendment.com for more information.

21 of 68

x………….BIND HERE…………x

DuPage County We, the undersigned registered and duly qualified voters of the State of Illinois petition to amend Article IV of the Illinois Constitution by placing the amendment attached hereto before the voters of Illinois at large by referendum at the General Election to be held in this State of Illinois on the second day of the month of November in the year 2010. Shall the voters of Illinois adopt the 2010 Illinois Fair Map Amendment which amends Article IV of the Illinois Constitution to change the structure of General Assembly member districts and the procedure by which the General Assembly redistricts the Legislative and Representative Districts?

YES NO

***NOTE***Registered voters in Aurora, Bloomington, Chicago, Danville, East St. Louis, Galesburg, Peoria or Rockford may only sign a petition form in which that city is indicated at the top of the form and in the column labeled “City.” SIGNATURE

ADDRESS

CITY, VILLAGE, TOWN

COUNTY

DuPage

10.

DuPage Circulator Affidavit

I, _________________________________, being first duly sworn, do hereby certify that I am at least 18 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that I reside at _____________________, in the City, Town or Village of ___________________________, County of _______________, State of Illinois, and that the signatures on the sheet were made in my presence and are genuine and were made not more than twenty-four (24) months preceding the General Election on November 2, 2010, that the text of the amendment was available for review and that to the best of my knowledge and belief the persons so signing were at the time of signing the petition duly qualified and registered voters of the State of Illinois and that their respective residences are correctly stated, as set forth above. ____________________________________ (Signature of Circulator) Signed and sworn to by _________________________________ before me, on ____________________________ (Name of Circulator) (DATE) [SEAL]

_____________________________________________ (Signature of Notary Public)

Return this Petition to: IL Fair Map Amendment, c/o League of Women Voters of Illinois 332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1150, Chicago, IL 60604 Sheet No. _______

22 of 68

2010 ILLINOIS FAIR MAP AMENDMENT to fill said vacancy within five days of the occurrence of the Chair of the Commission shall deliver that plan to the ARTICLE IV appropriate chamber of the General Assembly on the third vacancy. THE LEGISLATURE A meeting of a majority of a quorum of the Temporary business day after approval. The appropriate chamber of the (ILCON Art. IV, Sec. 2) General Assembly shall approve or reject that plan in the Redistricting Advisory Commission shall be open to the SECTION 2. LEGISLATIVE COMPOSITION public with at least twenty-four hour notice. The Temporary same manner established by subsection (c). Each chamber (a) One Senator shall be elected from each Legislative District. Immediately following each decennial redistricting, Redistricting Advisory Commission shall have authority to shall have until the first Monday in July to file a resolution with the Secretary of State approving the alternative the General Assembly shall divide the Legislative Districts as hire independent private firms for any assistance. The Commission shall conduct at least five public hearings on redistricting plan. equally as possible into three groups. Senators from one group shall be elected for terms of four years, four years and separate days around five distinct geographic regions of the (e) If a plan is not approved by a chamber of the General two years; Senators from the second group, for terms of four State before voting on any redistricting plans, and at least Assembly by the first Monday in July, the Commission shall years, two years and four years; and Senators from the third three of the hearings shall be after receipt of the data from approve by a majority one of the two previous plans submitted to the appropriate chamber of the General group, for terms of two years, four years and four years. The the United States Census Bureau. Assembly under subsections (c) and (d). The Chair of the Within three days after receipt of the data from the Legislative Districts in each group shall be distributed United States Census Bureau, the Commission shall make Commission shall file the approved redistricting plan for the substantially equally over the State. that data, together with redistricting software, available to the appropriate chamber with the Secretary of State not later (b) In 2012 and every two years thereafter one than the third Monday in July. Representative shall be elected from each Representative public. (b) The Commission shall approve any redistricting plans by (f) If at any time the Temporary Redistricting Advisory District for a term of two years. Commission fails to meet one of the deadlines set forth a majority vote of its members. (c) To be eligible to serve as a member of the General The Commission shall establish districts pursuant to a herein, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a Assembly, a person must be a United States citizen, at least 21 years old, and for the two years preceding his election or mapping process using the following criteria as set forth in Supreme Court judge chosen by the judges of the Supreme Court who are not of the political party of the Chief Justice the following order of priority: appointment a resident of the district which he is to represent. In the general election following a redistricting, a (1) Districts shall comply with all federal laws, and shall not shall within ten days jointly appoint and certify to the candidate for the General Assembly may be elected from any be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the Secretary of State one person to act as Special Master to generate any maps not previously approved. No person may equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to district which contains a part of the district in which he participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to serve as Special Master who is not eligible to serve on the resided at the time of the redistricting and reelected if a Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission. A person resident of the new district he represents for 18 months prior elect representatives of their choice. who serves as Special Master is not eligible to be elected to (2) Districts shall be contiguous. to reelection. the General Assembly or appointed to any office that is (d) Within thirty days after a vacancy occurs, it shall be filled (3) Districts shall be substantially equal in population. subject to confirmation by the Senate for ten years after (4) Districts shall be compact. by appointment as provided by law. If the vacancy is in a (5) District boundaries shall, to the extent practical, follow completion of service as a Special Master. A Special Master Senatorial office with more than twenty-eight months shall consider all redistricting plans delivered by or submitted remaining in the term, the appointed Senator shall serve until visible geographic features and municipal boundaries. to the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission, the the next general election, at which time a Senator shall be (6) The plan shall not be drawn to purposefully or elected to serve for the remainder of the term. If the vacancy significantly favor or discriminate against any political party or Senate, or the House as applicable. The Special Master shall have authority to hire independent assistance, make is in a Representative office or in any other Senatorial office, group. Party registration, voting history data and incumbency available the data received from the United States Census the appointment shall be for the remainder of the term. An appointee to fill a vacancy shall be a member of the same shall not be considered in the mapping process, except to Bureau, together with redistricting software, to the public within three days of receipt unless the Temporary evaluate compliance with the criteria listed in subsections political party as the person he succeeds. (b)(1) and (b)(6). The Commission shall establish definitions Redistricting Advisory Commission has already done so; (e) No member of the General Assembly shall receive compensation as a public officer or employee from any other where applicable for each of the criteria listed in subsections shall conduct at least five public hearings on separate days around five distinct geographic regions of the state after governmental entity for time during which he is in attendance (b)(1)-(6). A Representative District need not be entirely receipt of the data from the United States Census Bureau within a single Legislative District. as a member of the General Assembly. After preliminary approval of the redistricting plans, the and before promulgating any preliminary redistricting plans, No member of the General Assembly during the term for which he was elected or appointed shall be appointed to a Commission shall release the proposed plans to the public, and shall hold at least three public hearings on separate conduct at least three public hearings around three distinct days around three distinct geographic regions of the state public office which shall have been created or the compensation for which shall have been increased by the geographic regions of the State, and submit a report to the after promulgating any preliminary redistricting plans and General Assembly. At any time prior to the submission of a before finalizing any plan or plans. All documents submitted General Assembly during that term. to or utilized by the Special Master shall be made available to plan under subsection (c), any member of the General (ILCON Art. IV, Sec. 3) the public within a reasonable amount of time. The Special Assembly or general public may submit a plan to be SECTION 3. LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING (a) On the second Tuesday in February in the year following considered by the Commission and for public viewing. All Master shall file a redistricting plan complying with the criteria set forth in subsection 3(b) for the Legislative Districts and documents submitted to or plans considered by the each federal decennial census year, the President of the Senate, the Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of Commission shall be made available to the public within a Representative Districts, as applicable, with the Secretary of State not later than September 30. the House, and the Minority Leader of the House may each, reasonable time period. considering the diversity of the State, appoint two members (c) After conducting the required public hearings, the (g) A redistricting resolution or redistricting plan filed with to the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission. On or Commission shall approve by a majority vote a the Secretary of State shall be presumed valid, shall have before the second Tuesday in March, one additional member Representative redistricting plan by third Monday in May, the force and effect of law and shall be published promptly by shall be elected by a majority of the members appointed, and which the Chair of the Commission shall deliver to the House the Secretary of State. of Representatives on the third business day after approval. that member shall serve as Chair. Members of the The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission shall not be The House must take a record vote to accept the plan by a jurisdiction over actions concerning redistricting the House eligible to be elected to the General Assembly or appointed House Resolution. The Resolution is adopted if it receives and Senate, which shall be initiated in the name of the to any office that is subject to confirmation by the Senate for the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the members People of the State by the Attorney General. elected. ten years after completion of service on the Temporary SCHEDULE After conducting the required public hearings, the Redistricting Advisory Commission. No person may serve as The State Board of Elections shall proceed, as soon as all Commission shall approve by a majority vote a Senate a member of the Temporary Redistricting Advisory the returns are received but no later than 31 days after the Commission who is at the time of appointment, becomes at redistricting plan by the third Monday in May, which the Chair election, to canvass the votes given for and against this any time during service, or who was at any time during the of the Commission shall deliver to the Senate on the third Constitutional Amendment, as shown by the abstracts of preceding four years (i) a registered lobbyist in Illinois; (ii) an business day after approval. The Senate must take a record votes cast. If this Constitutional Amendment is approved by employee or contractor of the State of Illinois; (iii) an elected vote to accept the plan by a Senate Resolution. The either three-fifths of those voting on the question or a Resolution is adopted if it receives the affirmative vote of at majority of those voting in the election, then the State Board official of or a candidate for or appointed member of any elected body of: the federal government, the State, a unit of least two-thirds of the members elected. of Elections shall declare the adoption of this Constitutional Redistricting plans may not be amended by either local government, a school district or a political party or (iv) Amendment and it shall, upon declaration of its adoption, chamber. An adopted redistricting resolution shall be filed take effect and become a part of the Constitution of this an immediate family member of any of the foregoing. As used in this Article IV, Section 3, "immediate family member" with the Secretary of State by the presiding officer of the State. This Schedule supersedes and applies chamber that initiated the resolution. Each chamber shall notwithstanding any statute to the contrary, and no other is a person with whom the person has a bona fide relationship established through close blood or legal kinship. have until the first Monday in June to file a resolution with the requirements, including without limitation proclamation of the Secretary of State approving the redistricting plan. If any member of the Temporary Redistricting Advisory results of the vote or notice by publication, are necessary for (d) If a plan is not adopted by a chamber of the General Commission shall be unable to fulfill the duties required its effectiveness. This Constitutional Amendment applies to Assembly, the Commission shall approve an alternative under this Section, then the person who appointed said redistricting beginning in 2011 for the election of members of member, or that personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s successor, shall appoint a person redistricting plan no later than third Monday in June, and the the General Assembly beginning in 2012.

23 of 68

x………….BIND HERE…………x

Will County We, the undersigned registered and duly qualified voters of the State of Illinois petition to amend Article IV of the Illinois Constitution by placing the amendment attached hereto before the voters of Illinois at large by referendum at the General Election to be held in this State of Illinois on the second day of the month of November in the year 2010. Shall the voters of Illinois adopt the 2010 Illinois Fair Map Amendment which amends Article IV of the Illinois Constitution to change the structure of General Assembly member districts and the procedure by which the General Assembly redistricts the Legislative and Representative Districts?

YES NO

ADDRESS

CITY, VILLAGE, TOWN

COUNTY

Will

10.

Will Circulator Affidavit

_____________________________________________ (Signature of Notary Public)

Return this Petition to: IL Fair Map Amendment, c/o League of Women Voters of Illinois 332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1150, Chicago, IL 60604 Sheet No. _______

24 of 68

25 of 68

DRAFT VERSION â&#x20AC;&#x201C; NOT FINAL FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION

Naperville Voter Education League

Contents 1. Objective 2. League Purpose 3. Naperville Government History 4. League History 5. Ballot Questions 6. Signatures Required 7. Community Outreach 8. Ideology 9. Appendix

2/5/2010

26 of 68

Objective

1. Educate Naperville voters on issues the committee has undertaken 2. Remain impartial on all issues 3. Ensure that all facts and both sides of each issue reach the voting public

3 2/5/2010

League Purpose

Support the placement on the ballot, through City Council or voter petitions, and the votersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; consideration of two questions 1. Should the City of Naperville Have Term Limits 2. Should the City of Naperville Have District Representation

2/5/2010

27 of 68

Naperville Government History Our City has had different forms and structures of government -

1857 – Naperville organized as the Village of Naperville and Trustees were elected 1890 – Residents voted to switch to the district system and the first Mayor was elected 1913 – Government switched to commission form of government 1969 – Government switched to City Manager form of Government 2/5/2010

League History

¾ Developed as a follow-up to the meeting called by Councilman Jim Boyajian on June 15, 2009 ¾ Has met several times and debated the questions before forming the questions to ask ¾ Has not and will not take a position on the issues – our mission is solely educational

2/5/2010

28 of 68

District Question The question to be presented on the ballot:

"Shall the city of Naperville elect part of the councilmen at large and part of the councilmen from districts with staggered four year terms and biennial elections?" ¾ If Districts were to pass, there would be 5 District seats and 3 At-Large seats given Naperville’s current population, with a district expected to be about 30,000 people. ¾ District boundaries would be determined by the Council – with a Council appointed committee to analyze and recommend these boundaries.

2/5/2010

Term Limit Question The question to be listed on the ballot:

"Shall the City of Naperville limit the number of terms of office of each elected official in the city to no more than two consecutive four-year terms?" ¾ Currently, the offices are Councilmen and Mayor. Both offices would be affected by term limits. ¾ Presently, a person can run for as many terms as they can be elected. Under the proposal, a person could serve two terms as councilmen, two terms as mayor and then go back to councilmen. ¾ If the District question passes (see previous slide) then there would be three offices that a person could switch between and essentially be never termed out of office. 2/5/2010

29 of 68

Signatures Required ¾ To be placed on the ballot Term Limits Requires petitions signed by 10% of the registered voters in Naperville ¾ To be placed on the ballot Districts Requires petitions signed by 10% of the people who voted in the last Mayoral Election Voters

Dupage Will Total

Registered 59,275 27,606 86,881

Voted in Mayoral 14,771 4,436 19,207

10% of Total 20% Safety Signatures Total Needed

Term Limits 8,688 10 % 1,738 10,426

Districts 1,921 384 2,305

10%

2/5/2010

Community Outreach

• City Council members • Various community/political organizations • Educational Workshop March 23 - Rubin Community Center

2/5/2010

30 of 68

Ideology

他 League supports the idea that these key government issues should be debated every couple of decades. 他The debate over these and other government issues will ensure the best government is continually in place for our City.

2/5/2010

APPENDIX 31 of 68

Illinois Statute for Districts In Part, what the Illinois Statute says on how districts would be formed:

For the full State Statute please refer to the following web address:

2/5/2010

Petition for Districts

2/5/2010

32 of 68

Petition for Term Limits

2/5/2010

FAQ Districts What is the difference between District Representation and AtͲLarge representation? AtͲlarge representatives are voted into office by the entire City, District representatives are voted into office by the Citizens who reside in the district the Councilmen represent. AtͲlarge councilmen represent the entire city; District Councilmen represent the citizens that reside in their district only. How will the Districts be formed? If a referendum creating districts were to pass, the City Council would draw the district boundaries in accordance with law. For example, 65 ILCS 5/5Ͳ2Ͳ18.2 provides “The city council shall divide the city, whenever necessary thereafter, into districts which shall be of as compact and contiguous territory as practicable and of approximately equal population.” Have Districts ever been tried before? Yes. In 1890, the citizens of Naperville voted to reͲincorporate as a city in the State of Illinois with the most popular form of municipal government at the time. With a MayorͲAlderman form of government, Naperville was divided into wards with each ward electing its own representative. There were six aldermen and a Mayor who was elected atͲlarge. Will implementation of districts have a cost to the taxpayer? No. Since the total number of councilmen will remain the same, the citizens should not see additional costs added to the budget for this change. When will Districts take effect? District representation will take effect with the next Council Election in 2011.

2/5/2010

33 of 68

Districts Pro’s 1. Citizens always know to whom on council they can turn to bring up a concern or issue. 2. District Representation gives an equal voice to all areas of the city Ͳ Under a district system, your Councilmen lives, drives, walks, and shops in your neighborhood. 3. Every area of the city deserves equal representation. 4. The district system encourages Councilmen to become fully knowledgeable about the area they represent. 5. Running in a district makes Councilmen more accountable to neighborhood voters Ͳ Your vote carries more weight in district elections. 6. The district system prevents the possibility of having all Councilmen come from the same area of the city. 7. Citizens who need help know exactly who to contact and can hold them directly accountable at election time. 8. AtͲ Large elections are cost prohibitive. 9. Naperville is too large for Councilmen to have intimate knowledge of every neighborhood in the city. 10. In a democracy, it is important to make informed decisions. District elections facilitate faceͲtoͲface interaction between voters and candidates and help to inform voters.

2/5/2010

Districts Con’s 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Members represent the whole city, not just their own district Reduced divisiveness and factions Voters can choose from a broader base of candidates No battles over how to draw district lines AtͲlarge Councilmen are elected by a broad base of voters and are thus responsive to all constituents. Councilmen from districts may respond only to small groups of constituents who work hard to get them elected in the manner of ward politics. The atͲlarge system gives an unfair advantage to wealthy candidates. District Representation may result in elected officials who are unwilling to deal with large, complex citywide issues. District representation leads to increased spending and pork. AtͲlarge members are more likely to represent the interests of the city as a whole. They are not likely to act in support of narrow, parochial interests that are desired by a small part of the city. District Representation may result in elected officials who are unwilling to deal with large, complex citywide issues.

2/5/2010

34 of 68

FAQ Term Limits How will TermÍ˛Limits work? Elected officials will be limited to two or three consecutive elected terms. After two or three consecutive terms in office, the candidate will either have to run for a different office or sit out and election cycle before running again for the same office. How do TermÍ˛Limits benefit the voters of Naperville? Term limits encourage more participation from the citizens in their city government by encouraging others to step up and offer their skills to help govern and run their city. Term Limits lower the barrier to entry. During the time they are in office, incumbents enjoy the benefit of a public platform that provides the equivalent of years of free political advertising. Senior officials have had opportunities to make speeches, take public positions, hold press conferences, appear on radio or television, participate in ceremonies like school openings, and otherwise be in the news and public eye. To compete at all, challengers have to overcome that inherent edge with enormous amounts of paid political advertising. Not surprisingly, this creates a huge entry barrier. And that entry barrier keeps a lot of desirable challengers out. Term limits lower entry barriers by reducing the years of effectively free political advertising an incumbent can enjoy. That in turn encourages additional challengers, thus benefiting the political system in two ways: (1) by better defining the issues of the day and (2) by providing new ballot options the voters often prefer to the incumbent. Some of the additional challengers are in fact politicians termed out of other offices, which makes elections far more competitive by creating a race between two politicians who have had the advantage of a public platform.

2/5/2010

FAQ Term Limits (Cont) Do term limits result in an undesirable loss of experience? Potentially; however, A new person in office will bring a different view to the topics at hand which may be more beneficial. What if there is someone really good in office we would like to keep? A well respected and effective representative can move from a different office to an atÍ˛large office and back again. How can I find out more? I need a web site address here. What other locations in the area have term limits on their officials? Need to identify

2/5/2010

35 of 68

FAQ Term Limits (Cont) What Cities have term limits?

City Name

Term Limits

New York City

Los Angeles

Chicago

Houston

Philadelphia

Y (Mayor Only)

Phoenix

San Antonio

San Diego

Dallas San Jose

Y Y

2/5/2010

Term Limits Proâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 1. Term limits provide fresh perspective on issues that concern the citizens and their neighborhoods 2. Term limits prevent a politician and supporting special interest groups from establishing an entrenched position of power and influence over the City. 3. Term limits allow the incumbents to step away and see the council from the outside and find new ideas

2/5/2010

36 of 68

Term Limits Conâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 1. Term Limits may reduce the number of experienced people on the council 2. Working relationships may have to be built more frequently 3. The voters should decide with their votes on when an official should be taken out of office

2/5/2010

Relevant Websites 1. http://bengrosser.com/noatlarge.org/research/at-large-research-9-112004.pdf 2. http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/newsblog/2008/10/should_nape rville_consider_cou.html 3. http://www.empowernb.com/files/fckimages/file/Support%20the%20W ard%20Campaign.pdf 4. http://coalition4democracy.com/wardfacts.htm 5. http://www.springerlink.com/content/v663836h2615218m/

2/5/2010

37 of 68

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.

2/5/2010

38 of 68

MONTHLY BRIEFING

JANUARY 2010

http://www.ilga.gov/commission/cgfa2006/home.aspx

SENATE Jeffrey M. Schoenberg, Co-Chairman Bill Brady Michael Frerichs Matt Murphy Dave Syverson Donne Trotter HOUSE Richard P. Myers, Co-Chairman Patricia Bellock Kevin McCarthy Elaine Nekritz Raymond Poe Al Riley EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Dan R. Long

ECONOMY: Jobs the Main Concern Edward H. Boss, Jr., Chief Economist

he economic recovery has been underway since last summer as confirmed by data released by the Commerce Department near month end, yet the major concern is the lack of jobs this growth has generated. Advanced data on inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) showed the economy grew for the second consecutive quarter in the final quarter of last year at an annual rate of 5.7%, the fastest pace since the third quarter of 2003. This was up substantially from the 2.2% gain in the previous quarter, which had reversed four consecutive quarters of decline. The surge in last quarter’s growth in large part reflected the change in real private inventories that added 3.39 percentage points to the overall gain, and therefore its strength could prove temporary, although business capital spending, exports, and consumer spending came in somewhat higher than expected.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Trevor J. Clatfelter INSIDE THIS ISSUE PAGE 1 - ECONOMY: Jobs the Main Concern PAGE 3: Illinois Economic Indicators PAGE 3: FY 2010 Special Transfers PAGE 10 - REVENUE: January Revenues Grow Due to Federal Sources PAGE 11-12: Revenue Tables PAGE 13 - PENSIONS: Systems Funding Projections

Retirement

703 Stratton Ofc. Bldg. Springfield, IL 62706

At the same time that the economy has been growing over the past six months employment continued to drop, albeit at a slower rate, and the unemployment rate rose to 10%. In the U.S. employment dropped by over 800,000 since June as measured by the Establishment, or payroll measure, substantially less than the 4.1 million lost in the previous six months. The slowdown, however, was substantially less in the Household Survey, used to determine the unemployment rate. In this series employment loss slowed from 3.1 million in the first six months of 2009 to only a 2.3 million loss in the six months ended December 2009. While most attention generally is paid to the more comprehensive Establishment series, which directly looks at the employment records of companies, it is slow to account for new businesses where most new jobs are created. 39 of 68Thus, in the early stages of an economic recovery, the

CHART 1 12

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES

Percent

ILLINOIS 6

UNITED STATES 4

2 JAN

JAN 00

JAN 01

JAN 02

JAN 03

JAN 04

JAN 05

JAN 06

JAN 07

JAN 08

JAN 09

CGFA

Establishment series may lag, or put another way, the Household series may lead. This being the case, the continued weaker employment picture in the Household survey does not auger well for a substantial improvement in the employment picture any time soon.

llinois’ unemployment rate is currently at 11.1%, the highest during this cycle and surpassed only in February 1983 when it reached a post WWII record 12.9% (at that time the U.S. unemployment rate was 10.4%). It is not unusual for Illinois’ unemployment rate to be above the national rate, as generally has been the case in recent decades, although the magnitude of the difference currently is extremely large in part because Illinois has typically lagged the nation at this stage of the business cycle. Recently, it was announced that an Illinois Ford plant would be adding 1,200 new jobs as it was chosen to produce the new Ford Explorer SUV at the Chicago based plant. This is important as manufacturing jobs have been the hardest hit in recent years as reflected in the 1,300 manufacturing jobs lost just last month.

Chart 1 shows unemployment rates for the U.S. and Illinois. As illustrated, the U.S. unemployment rate currently is at 10% for the second consecutive month, up from 7.2% a year ago. Moreover, it would have been higher last month had it not been for a reduction in the size of the labor force. Indeed, as many analysts have concluded, if discouraged workers who have stopped looking for work and those working part time that would prefer to work full time were included, the “real” unemployment rate probably would be around 17%.

40 of 68 -2-

Most forecasters continue to predict a continuation of the economic recovery. They point to an improvement in business spending as reflected in the Purchasing Manufacturersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Indices as well as the rising trend of nondefense capital goods orders; stronger exports; the declining trend in unemployment claims; an improvement in consumer attitudes; and a 38-year low in the inventory of new houses, suggesting the housing sector may be reaching a bottom.

come as well as proposals to assist small businesses announced by the President in his State of the Union address. While further growth is anticipated, its rate expected in the quarters ahead is likely to fall short of what would be needed to sharply improve unemployment rates any time soon. Indeed, as it is perceived that economic conditions are continuing to improve, it can be expected that discouraged workers will reenter the labor force keeping unemployment rates relatively high. Even so any improvement in employment would be welcomed and a necessary step to eventually reduce unemployment rates both in the U.S. and in Illinois.

n addition to expectations of continued economic growth, there is still a large share of federal stimulus spending yet to

INDICATORS OF ILLINOIS ECONOMIC ACTIVITY INDICATORS

DEC. 2009

Unemployment Rate (Average) Annual Rate of Inflation (Chicago)

NOV. 2009

11.1% -5.8%

LATEST MONTH

Civilian Labor Force (thousands) (December) Employment (thousands) (December) New Car & Truck Registration (December) Single Family Housing Permits (December) Total Exports ($ mil) (November) Chicago Purchasing Managers Index (January)

10.9% 2.8% % CHANGE OVER PRIOR MONTH

6,623 5,890 34,057 482 3,692 61.5

-0.3% -0.5% 8.4% -26.7% -0.4% 4.7%

DEC. 2008

7.2% 2.5% % CHANGE OVER A YEAR AGO

-0.6% -4.6% 5.0% 23.9% -17.0% 84.6%

FY 2010 SPECIAL TRANSFERS Lynnae Kapp, Senior Analyst FY 2010 Fund Sweeps to the General Revenue Fund were approved by Public Acts 96-0044 and 96-0045, in the amount of $351.7 million. Amounts will be transferred quarterly, or as they become available. In January 2010, the quarterly

amounts transferred netted $58.7 million, including retransfers that were made back to the original funds due to appropriation needs. Year-to-date, there have been $219.9 million in fund sweeps, as shown in the following tables.

41 of 68 -3-

FY2010 FUND SWEEPS

Comptroller's Audit Expense Revolving Fund 0113 Community Health Center Care Fund 0115 Safe Bottled Water Fund 0118 Facility Licensing Fund Hansen-Therkelsin Memorial Deaf Student 0123 College Fund IL Underground Utility Facilities Damage 0127 Prevention Fund School District Emergency Financial 0130 Assistance Fund 0134 Mental Health Transportation Fund Registered CPA Administration & 0151 Disciplinary Fund 0152 State Crime Lab Fund

0112

0031 0046 0047 0048 0050 0057 0059 0060 0067 0069 0071 0074 0078 0085 0089 0093 0096 0100

IL Dept. of AG Lab Services Revolving Fund Drivers Education Fund Aeronautics Fund Fire Prevention Fund Rural/Downstate Health Access Fund Mental Health Fund IL State Pharmacy Disciplinary Fund Public Utility Fund Alzheimer's Disease Research Fund Radiation Protection Fund Natural Heritage Endowment Trust Fund Firearm Owner's Notification Fund EPA Special State Projects Trust Fund Solid Waste Management Fund IL Gaming Law Enforcement Fund Subtitle D Management Fund IL State Medical Disciplinary Fund Cemetery Consumer Protection Fund Assistance to the Homeless Fund Accessible Electronic Information Services 0106 Fund 0109 CDLIS/AAMVAnet Trust Fund

0024

Fund No. 0014 Food and Drug Safety Fund Penny Severns Breast, Cervical & Ovarian 0015 Cancer Research Fund 0018 Transportation Regulatory Fund 0022 General Professions Dedicated Fund 0023 Economic Research and Information Fund

Agrichemical Incident Response Trust Fund General Assembly Computer Equipment 0155 Revolving Fund

0153

42 of 68

$8,650.00 $35,720.00

$34,600.00 $142,880.00

$25,400.00

$514,800.00 $214.75

$2,059,200.00 $859.00

$101,600.00

$7,400.00

$29,600.00

$20,000.00

$125,925.00

$503,700.00

$80,000.00

$7,800.00 $112,500.00 $3,750.00 $90,900.00

$2,500.00 $27,500.00

$10,000.00 $110,000.00 $31,200.00 $450,000.00 $15,000.00 $363,600.00

$3,206.25 $561,000.00 $6,340.00 $2,600,000.00 $425.00 $6,140,000.00 $513,525.00 $240,043.75 $28,125.00 $23,062.50 $62,500.00 $64,100.00 $940,000.00 $300,000.00 $35,250.00 $93,750.00 $2,819,300.00 $164,500.00 $3,450.00

$8,325.00 $530,500.00 $877,975.00 $280.00

$33,300.00 $2,122,000.00 $3,511,900.00 $1,120.00 $12,825.00 $2,244,000.00 $25,360.00 $10,400,000.00 $1,700.00 $24,560,000.00 $2,054,100.00 $960,175.00 $112,500.00 $92,250.00 $250,000.00 $256,400.00 $3,760,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $141,000.00 $375,000.00 $11,277,200.00 $658,000.00 $13,800.00

July $1,700.00

Statutory Amount $6,800.00

PA 96-44 & 96-45

$280.00

Sep

-4-

$25,400.00

$20,000.00

$8,650.00 $35,720.00

$514,800.00 $214.75

$7,400.00

$125,925.00

$7,800.00 $112,500.00

$2,500.00 $27,500.00

$3,750.00 $90,900.00

$25,400.00

$20,000.00

$8,650.00 $35,720.00

$514,800.00 $214.75

$7,400.00

$125,925.00

$7,800.00 $112,500.00 $3,750.00

$2,500.00 $27,500.00

$0.00 $35,250.00 ($107,471.00) ($620,000.00) $164,500.00 $3,450.00

$8,325.00 $530,500.00 $877,975.00 $280.00

Jan $1,700.00

($300,000.00) $35,250.00 $93,750.00 $2,819,300.00 $164,500.00 $3,450.00

($159,400.00)

Dec

$3,206.25 ($69,000.00) $6,340.00 $2,600,000.00 $425.00 $6,140,000.00 $513,525.00 $240,043.75 $28,125.00 $23,062.50 $62,500.00 $64,100.00

($172,000.00)

Nov

$3,206.25 $561,000.00 $6,340.00 $2,600,000.00 $425.00 $6,140,000.00 $513,525.00 $240,043.75 $28,125.00 $23,062.50 $62,500.00 $64,100.00

$8,325.00 $530,500.00 $877,975.00

Oct $1,700.00

$76,200.00

$60,000.00

$25,950.00 $107,160.00

$1,544,400.00 $644.25

$22,200.00

$377,775.00

$23,400.00 $337,500.00 $11,250.00 $181,800.00

$7,500.00 $82,500.00

$9,618.75 $1,053,000.00 $19,020.00 $7,800,000.00 $1,275.00 $18,420,000.00 $1,540,575.00 $720,131.25 $84,375.00 $69,187.50 $187,500.00 $192,300.00 $940,000.00 $0.00 $105,750.00 $80,029.00 $4,687,200.00 $493,500.00 $10,350.00

$24,975.00 $1,591,500.00 $2,633,925.00 $840.00

TOTAL $5,100.00

$25,400.00

$20,000.00

$8,650.00 $35,720.00

$514,800.00 $214.75

$7,400.00

$125,925.00

$7,800.00 $112,500.00 $3,750.00 $181,800.00

$2,500.00 $27,500.00

$3,206.25 $1,191,000.00 $6,340.00 $2,600,000.00 $425.00 $6,140,000.00 $513,525.00 $240,043.75 $28,125.00 $23,062.50 $62,500.00 $64,100.00 $2,820,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $35,250.00 $294,971.00 $6,590,000.00 $164,500.00 $3,450.00

$8,325.00 $530,500.00 $877,975.00 $280.00

Remainder $1,700.00

Public Health Lab Services Revolving Fund 0341 Provider Inquiry Trust Fund 0342 Audit Expense Fund

0340 $450,000.00 $200,000.00 $5,972,190.00

$48,000.00 $600,000.00 $41,416.00 $162,520.00 $307,824.00 $8,853,552.00 $1,000,000.00 $6,450,000.00 $29,680.00 $3,500,000.00 $155,000.00

Home Care Services Agency Licensure Fund Community Water Supply Lab Fund Motor Fuel and Petroleum Standards Fund Fertilizer Control Fund Regulatory Fund Used Tire Management Fund Natural Areas Acquisition Fund Working Capital Revolving Fund Tax Recovery Fund Professional Services Fund Treasurer's Rental Fee Fund

0288 0289 0290 0291 0294 0298 0301 0310 0317 0331 $112,500.00 $50,000.00 $1,493,047.50

$12,000.00 $150,000.00 $10,354.00 $40,630.00 $76,956.00 $2,213,388.00 $250,000.00 $1,612,500.00 $7,420.00 $875,000.00 $38,750.00

$248,950.00 $1,240.00 $12,500.00 $425,000.00

$995,800.00 $4,960.00 $50,000.00 $1,700,000.00

0287

$12,500.00 $6,060.00 $314,480.00 $102,250.00 $6,125.00 $2,497,100.00

$50,000.00 $24,240.00 $1,257,920.00 $409,000.00 $24,500.00 $9,988,400.00

July $156,250.00 $74,900.00 $822,640.00 $19,875.00 $1,250.00 $125,000.00 $2,200.00 $300,000.00 $86,500.00 $536,125.00 $41,720.00 $5,000.00 $348,100.00 $218,750.00

Statutory Amount $625,000.00 $299,600.00 $3,290,560.00 $79,500.00 $5,000.00 $500,000.00 $8,800.00 $1,200,000.00 $346,000.00 $2,144,500.00 $166,880.00

PA 96-44 & 96-45

$20,000.00 $1,392,400.00 $875,000.00

Fund Weights and Measures Fund IL School Asbestos Abatement Fund Injured Workers' Benefit Fund Violence Prevention Fund Professional Regulation Evidence Fund IPTIP Administrative Trust Fund Diabetes Research Checkoff Fund Ticket for the Cure Fund CDB Revolving Fund Professions Indirect Cost Fund State Police DUI Fund

FY2010 FUND SWEEPS

Medicaid Fraud and Abuse Prevention Fund 0238 IL Health Facilities Planning Fund 0240 Emergency Public Health Fund Transmitters of Money Act (TOMA) 0241 Consumer Protection Fund 0242 ISAC Accounts Receivable Fund 0245 Fair and Exposition Fund 0251 Dept. of Labor Special State Trust Fund 0256 Public Health Water Permit Fund 0258 Nursing Dedicated & Professional Fund Optometric Licensing & Disciplinary Board 0259 Fund 0270 Water Revolving Fund 0283 Methamphetamine Law Enforcement Fund 0285 Long Term Care Monitor/Receiver Fund

0237

No. 0163 0175 0179 0184 0192 0195 0198 0208 0215 0218 0222

43 of 68

Sep

-5-

$112,500.00 $50,000.00 $1,493,047.50

$12,000.00 $150,000.00 $10,354.00 $40,630.00 $76,956.00 $2,213,388.00 $250,000.00 $1,612,500.00 $7,420.00 $875,000.00 $38,750.00

$248,950.00 $1,240.00 $12,500.00 $425,000.00

$12,500.00 $6,060.00 $314,480.00 $102,250.00 $6,125.00 $2,497,100.00

$5,000.00 $348,100.00 $218,750.00

Oct $156,250.00 $74,900.00 $822,640.00 $19,875.00 $1,250.00 $125,000.00 $2,200.00 $300,000.00 $86,500.00 $536,125.00 $41,720.00

($17,000.00)

Nov

($8,000.00)

Dec

$50,000.00 $1,493,047.50

$12,000.00 $97,853.00 $10,354.00 $40,630.00 $76,956.00 $2,213,388.00 $250,000.00 $1,612,500.00 $7,420.00 $875,000.00 $38,750.00

($61,562.45) $1,240.00 $12,500.00 $425,000.00

$6,060.00 $314,480.00 $102,250.00

$5,000.00 $348,100.00 $218,750.00

Jan $156,250.00 $74,900.00 $822,640.00 $19,875.00 $1,250.00 $125,000.00 $2,200.00 $300,000.00 $86,500.00 $536,125.00 $41,720.00

$225,000.00 $150,000.00 $4,479,142.50

$36,000.00 $397,853.00 $31,062.00 $121,890.00 $230,868.00 $6,640,164.00 $750,000.00 $4,837,500.00 $22,260.00 $2,625,000.00 $116,250.00

$411,337.55 $3,720.00 $37,500.00 $1,275,000.00

$25,000.00 $18,180.00 $943,440.00 $306,750.00 $12,250.00 $4,994,200.00

$15,000.00 $1,044,300.00 $656,250.00

TOTAL $468,750.00 $224,700.00 $2,467,920.00 $59,625.00 $3,750.00 $375,000.00 $6,600.00 $900,000.00 $259,500.00 $1,608,375.00 $125,160.00

$225,000.00 $50,000.00 $1,493,047.50

$12,000.00 $202,147.00 $10,354.00 $40,630.00 $76,956.00 $2,213,388.00 $250,000.00 $1,612,500.00 $7,420.00 $875,000.00 $38,750.00

$584,462.45 $1,240.00 $12,500.00 $425,000.00

$25,000.00 $6,060.00 $314,480.00 $102,250.00 $12,250.00 $4,994,200.00

$5,000.00 $348,100.00 $218,750.00

Remainder $156,250.00 $74,900.00 $822,640.00 $19,875.00 $1,250.00 $125,000.00 $2,200.00 $300,000.00 $86,500.00 $536,125.00 $41,720.00

FY2010 FUND SWEEPS PA 96-44 & 96-45

0485 0514 0517 0520

0474

0452

0444

0397 0398 0417 0418 0419 0422 0429 0430 0431 0440

0394

0388

0387

0378 0386

0376

0373

State Treasurer's Bank Services Trust Fund State Police Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Trust Fund Insurance Premium Tax Refund Fund Appraisal Administration Fund Small Business Environmental Assistance Fund Regulatory Evaluation and Basic Enforcement Fund Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs Fund Trauma Center Fund EMS Assistance Fund State College and University Trust Fund University Grant Fund DCEO Projects Fund Alternate Fuels Fund Multiple Sclerosis Research Fund Livestock Management Facilities Fund Second Injury Fund Agricultural Master Fund High Speed Internet Services & Information Technology Fund IL Tourism Tax Fund Human Services Priority Capital Program Fund Warrant Escheat State Asset Forfeiture Fund Police Training Board Services Fund Federal Asset Forfeiture Fund Dept. of Corrections Reimbursement and Education Fund Health Facility Plan Review Fund Domestic Violence Abuser Services Fund LEADS Maintenance Fund

0524 0528 0536

0523

$1,730,000.00 $36,975.00 $156,250.00 $5,000.00 $75,000.00 $396,400.00

$1,730,000.00 $36,975.00 $1,100,000.00 $156,250.00 $5,000.00 $75,000.00 $396,400.00

$31,250.00 $3,750.00 $1,000,000.00 $27,500.00 $5,051.00 $1,402.00 $500,000.00 $6,800.00 $20,480.00 $153,920.00 $34,246.00 $825,000.00 $62,500.00 $1,844,600.00 $348,540.25 $80,400.00 $2,000.00 $440.00

$125,000.00 $15,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $110,000.00 $20,204.00 $5,608.00 $1,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $27,200.00 $81,920.00 $615,680.00 $136,984.00 $3,300,000.00 $250,000.00 $7,378,400.00 $1,394,161.00 $321,600.00 $8,000.00 $1,760.00

$62,500.00 $385,900.00 $2,875.00 $41,700.00

$500,000.00 $6,800.00 $20,480.00 $153,920.00 $34,246.00

$6,020.00

$24,080.00

$250,000.00 $1,543,600.00 $11,500.00 $166,800.00

$3,750.00 $1,000,000.00 $27,500.00 $5,051.00 $1,402.00

$11,625.00 $14,675.00 $94,600.00

$46,500.00 $58,700.00 $378,400.00

-6-

$62,500.00 $385,900.00 $2,875.00 $41,700.00

$1,844,600.00 $348,540.25 $80,400.00 $2,000.00 $440.00

$825,000.00 $62,500.00

$31,250.00

$6,020.00

$11,625.00 $14,675.00 $94,600.00

$1,700,000.00

$25,000.00

Oct $657,960.00 $122,500.00

Sep

$122,500.00

July $657,960.00

$6,800,000.00

Fund Statutory Amount No. $2,631,840.00 0356 Law Enforcement Camera Grant Fund Child Labor and Day & Temporary Labor 0357 Services Enforcement Fund $490,000.00 Lead Poisoning Screening, Prevention, and 0360 Abatement Fund $100,000.00 Health & Human Services Medicaid Trust 0365 Fund $6,920,000.00 Prisoner Review Board Vehicle & Equipment 0366 Fund $147,900.00 $4,400,000.00 0368 Drug Treatment Fund $625,000.00 0369 Feed Control Fund $20,000.00 0370 Tanning Facility Permit Fund Innovations in Long-term Care Quality 0371 Demonstration Grants Fund $300,000.00 $1,585,600.00 0372 Plumbing Licensure and Program Fund

44 of 68

$1,100,000.00

Nov

Dec

$62,500.00 $385,900.00 $2,875.00 $41,700.00

$1,844,600.00 $348,540.25 $80,400.00 $2,000.00 $440.00

$825,000.00 $62,500.00

$500,000.00 $6,800.00 $20,480.00 $153,920.00 $34,246.00

$3,750.00 $1,000,000.00 $27,500.00 $5,051.00 $1,402.00

$31,250.00

$6,020.00

($23,250.00) $14,675.00 $94,600.00

$75,000.00 $396,400.00

$156,250.00 $5,000.00

$36,975.00

$1,730,000.00

$25,000.00

$122,500.00

Jan $657,960.00

$187,500.00 $1,157,700.00 $8,625.00 $125,100.00

$5,533,800.00 $1,045,620.75 $241,200.00 $6,000.00 $1,320.00

$2,475,000.00 $187,500.00

$11,250.00 $3,000,000.00 $82,500.00 $15,153.00 $4,206.00 $0.00 $1,500,000.00 $20,400.00 $61,440.00 $461,760.00 $102,738.00

$93,750.00

$18,060.00

$0.00 $44,025.00 $283,800.00

$3,400,000.00

$225,000.00 $1,189,200.00

$110,925.00 $2,200,000.00 $468,750.00 $15,000.00

$5,190,000.00

$75,000.00

$367,500.00

TOTAL $1,973,880.00

$62,500.00 $385,900.00 $2,875.00 $41,700.00

$1,844,600.00 $348,540.25 $80,400.00 $2,000.00 $440.00

$825,000.00 $62,500.00

$3,750.00 $1,000,000.00 $27,500.00 $5,051.00 $1,402.00 $1,000,000.00 $500,000.00 $6,800.00 $20,480.00 $153,920.00 $34,246.00

$31,250.00

$6,020.00

$46,500.00 $14,675.00 $94,600.00

$3,400,000.00

$75,000.00 $396,400.00

$36,975.00 $2,200,000.00 $156,250.00 $5,000.00

$1,730,000.00

$25,000.00

$122,500.00

Remainder $657,960.00

0714

0712

0708

0705

0702

0641 0642 0643 0649 0653 0658 0677 0690

0638

0637

0608 0611 0613 0621 0631 0635

0605

0604

0581

0562 0564 0567 0569 0571 0576

0552

No. 0537 0538 0543 0546

0731

0718

0716

FY2010 FUND SWEEPS PA 96-44 & 96-45

Fund Statutory Amount State Offender DNA ID System Fund $615,040.00 IL Historic Sites Fund $250,000.00 Comptroller's Administrative Fund $134,690.00 Public Pension Regulation Fund $0.00 Workforce, Technology and Economic Development Fund $2,000,000.00 Pawnbroker Regulation Fund $26,400.00 Renewable Energy Resources Trust Fund $13,408,328.00 Charter Schools Revolving Loan Fund $82,000.00 School Technology Revolving Loan Fund $1,230,000.00 Energy Efficiency Trust Fund $1,490,000.00 Pesticide Control Fund $625,000.00 Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Fund $10,000.00 Multiple Sclerosis Assistance Fund $8,000.00 Temporary Relocation Expenses Revolving Grant Fund $460,000.00 Partners for Conservation Fund $8,200,000.00 Fund for Illinois' Future $3,000,000.00 Wireless Carrier Reimbursement Fund $13,650,000.00 International Tourism Fund $5,043,344.00 IL Racing Quarterhorse Breeders Fund $1,448.00 Death Certificate Surcharge Fund $900,000.00 State Police Wireless Service Emergency Fund $1,329,280.00 IL Adoption Registry & Medical Information Exchange Fund $8,400.00 Auction Regulation Administration Fund $361,600.00 DHS State Projects Fund $193,900.00 Auction Recovery Fund $4,600.00 Motor Carrier Safety Inspection Fund $389,840.00 Coal Development Fund $320,000.00 State Off-set Claims Fund $400,000.00 ISAC Contracts and Grants Fund $128,850.00 DHS Private Resources Fund $1,000,000.00 Assisted Living and Shared Housing Reg. Fund $122,400.00 State Police Whistleblower Reward and Protection Fund $3,900,000.00 Illinois Standardbred Breeders Fund $134,608.00 Post Transplant Maintenance and Retention Fund $85,800.00 Spinal Cord Injury Paralysis Cure Research Trust Fund $300,000.00 Organ Donor Awareness Fund $115,000.00 Community Mental Health Medicaid Trust Fund $1,030,900.00 IL Clean Water Fund $8,649,600.00

45 of 68

$332,320.00 $2,100.00 $90,400.00 $48,475.00 $1,150.00 $97,460.00 $80,000.00 $32,212.50 $250,000.00 $30,600.00 $975,000.00 $33,652.00 $21,450.00 $75,000.00 $28,750.00

-7-

$257,725.00 $2,162,400.00

($115,000.00) $2,050,000.00 $750,000.00 $3,412,500.00 $1,260,836.00 $362.00 $225,000.00

$115,000.00 $2,050,000.00 $750,000.00 $3,412,500.00 $1,260,836.00 $362.00 $225,000.00

$257,725.00 $2,162,400.00

$2,500.00 $2,000.00

Oct $153,760.00 $62,500.00 $33,672.50

$6,600.00 $0.00 $20,500.00 $307,500.00 $372,500.00 $156,250.00

Sep

$6,600.00 $3,352,082.00 $20,500.00 $307,500.00 $372,500.00 $156,250.00

July $153,760.00 $62,500.00 $33,672.50

($14,518.86)

($3,352,082.00)

Nov

($49,803.00)

Dec

$257,725.00 $2,162,400.00

$75,000.00 $28,750.00

$21,450.00

$975,000.00 $33,652.00

$30,600.00

$250,000.00

$48,475.00 $1,150.00 $97,460.00 $80,000.00

$2,100.00

$332,320.00

$2,050,000.00 $750,000.00 $3,412,500.00 $1,260,836.00 $362.00 $225,000.00

($5,000.00) $2,000.00

$6,600.00 $0.00 $20,500.00 $307,500.00 $372,500.00 $156,250.00

Jan $153,760.00 $62,500.00 $3,698.09

$773,175.00 $6,487,200.00

$225,000.00 $86,250.00

$64,350.00

$2,925,000.00 $100,956.00

$91,800.00

$6,300.00 $180,800.00 $145,425.00 $3,450.00 $292,380.00 $240,000.00 $0.00 $103.14 $750,000.00

$996,960.00

$0.00 $6,150,000.00 $2,250,000.00 $10,237,500.00 $3,782,508.00 $1,086.00 $675,000.00

$257,725.00 $2,162,400.00

$75,000.00 $28,750.00

$21,450.00

$975,000.00 $33,652.00

$30,600.00

$2,100.00 $180,800.00 $48,475.00 $1,150.00 $97,460.00 $80,000.00 $400,000.00 $128,746.86 $250,000.00

$332,320.00

$460,000.00 $2,050,000.00 $750,000.00 $3,412,500.00 $1,260,836.00 $362.00 $225,000.00

$10,000.00 $2,000.00

$2,000,000.00 $6,600.00 $13,408,328.00 $20,500.00 $307,500.00 $372,500.00 $156,250.00

$0.00 $19,800.00 $0.00 $61,500.00 $922,500.00 $1,117,500.00 $468,750.00 $0.00 $6,000.00

Remainder $153,760.00 $62,500.00 $63,646.91 $0.00

TOTAL $461,280.00 $187,500.00 $71,043.09 $0.00

FY2010 FUND SWEEPS

Medicaid Buy-In Program Revolving Fund Home Inspector Admin Fund Real Estate Audit Fund Marine Corps Scholarship Fund Tourism Promotion Fund Oil Spill Response Fund Presidential Library and Museum Operating Fund Nuclear Safety Emergency Preparedness Fund DCEO Energy Projects Fund Dram Shop Fund Illinois State Dental Disciplinary Fund Hazardous Waste Fund Natural Recourses Restoration Trust Fund State Fair Promotional Activities Fund Continuing Legal Education Trust Fund Environ Protection Trust Fund Real Estate Research and Education Fund Federal Moderate Rehabilitation Housing Fund

Domestic Violence Shelter and Service Fund 0866 Snowmobile Trail Establishment Fund 0878 Drug Traffic Prevention Fund Traffic and Criminal Conviction Surcharge 0879 Fund Design Professionals Admin and Investigation 0888 Fund 0896 Public Health Special State Projects Fund 0900 Petroleum Violation Fund 0906 State Police Services Fund 0909 Illinois Wildlife Preservation Fund 0910 Youth Drug Abuse Prevention Fund 0922 Insurance Producer Administration Fund Coal Technology Development Assistance 0925 Fund 0934 Child Abuse Prevention Fund Hearing Instrument Dispenser Examining and 0938 Disciplinary Fund Low-level Radioactive Waste Facility 0942 Development and Operation Fund Environmental Protection Permit and 0944 Inspection Fund 0945 Landfill Closure and Post-Closure Fund

0865

0851

0820 0821 0823 0828 0831 0835 0844 0845 0849

0796

0776

0746 0750 0760 0763 0774

0740

Fund No. 0733 Tobacco Settlement Recovery Fund Alternative Compliance Market Account 0738 Fund Group Worker's Compensation Pool 0739 Insolvency Fund

46 of 68

$1,350,000.00 $18,300.00 $475,000.00 $270.00 $1,770,520.00 $2,475.00 $33,375.00 $3,042,500.00 $464,000.00 $62,500.00 $12,600.00 $250,000.00 $188,943.75 $620.00

$5,400,000.00 $73,200.00 $1,900,000.00 $1,080.00 $7,082,080.00 $9,900.00 $133,500.00 $12,170,000.00 $1,856,000.00 $250,000.00 $50,400.00 $1,000,000.00 $755,775.00 $2,480.00

$11,240.00

$44,960.00 $13,950.00 $1,325.00 $2,800.00

$1,500,000.00 $544,050.00 $125,000.00 $46,825.00 $200,000.00 $1,925.00 $418.00 $2,637.50 $156,250.00 $270,250.00

$6,000,000.00 $2,176,200.00 $500,000.00 $187,300.00 $800,000.00 $7,700.00 $1,672.00 $10,550.00 $625,000.00 $1,081,000.00

$55,800.00 $5,300.00 $11,200.00

$42,475.00

$169,900.00

$10,700.00

$42,800.00 $250,000.00 $306,300.00 $300.00 $17,250.00 $7,500,000.00 $1,200.00

$2,496.00

$9,984.00

$1,000,000.00 $1,225,200.00 $1,200.00 $69,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $4,800.00

July $2,500,000.00

Statutory Amount $10,000,000.00

PA 96-44 & 96-45 Sep

-8-

$188,943.75 $620.00

$250,000.00

$12,600.00

$464,000.00 $62,500.00

$18,300.00 $475,000.00 $270.00 $1,770,520.00 $2,475.00 $33,375.00 $3,042,500.00

$1,350,000.00

$13,950.00 $1,325.00 $2,800.00

$11,240.00

($696,849.00) ($544,050.00) $125,000.00 $46,825.00 $200,000.00 $1,925.00 $418.00 $2,637.50 $156,250.00 $270,250.00

$42,475.00

$250,000.00 $306,300.00 $300.00 $17,250.00 $7,500,000.00 $1,200.00

$10,700.00

$2,496.00

Oct $2,500,000.00

($803,151.00)

Nov

Dec

$188,943.75 $620.00

$250,000.00

$12,600.00

$464,000.00 $62,500.00

$18,300.00 $475,000.00 $270.00 $1,770,520.00 $2,475.00 $33,375.00 $3,042,500.00

$1,350,000.00

$13,950.00 $1,325.00 $2,800.00

($22,480.00)

$566,831.25 $1,860.00

$750,000.00

$37,800.00

$1,392,000.00 $187,500.00

$54,900.00 $1,425,000.00 $810.00 $5,311,560.00 $7,425.00 $100,125.00 $9,127,500.00

$4,050,000.00

$41,850.00 $3,975.00 $8,400.00

$0.00

$1,500,000.00 $0.00 $375,000.00 $140,475.00 $600,000.00 $5,775.00 $1,254.00 $5,275.00 $468,750.00 $810,750.00

$1,500,000.00 $0.00 $125,000.00 $46,825.00 $200,000.00 $1,925.00 $418.00 $156,250.00 $270,250.00

$127,425.00

$750,000.00 $918,900.00 $900.00 $34,500.00 $15,000,000.00 $3,600.00

$32,100.00

$7,488.00

TOTAL $5,000,000.00

$42,475.00

$1,200.00

$250,000.00 $306,300.00 $300.00

$10,700.00

$2,496.00

Jan

$188,943.75 $620.00

$250,000.00

$12,600.00

$464,000.00 $62,500.00

$18,300.00 $475,000.00 $270.00 $1,770,520.00 $2,475.00 $33,375.00 $3,042,500.00

$1,350,000.00

$13,950.00 $1,325.00 $2,800.00

$44,960.00

$4,500,000.00 $2,176,200.00 $125,000.00 $46,825.00 $200,000.00 $1,925.00 $418.00 $5,275.00 $156,250.00 $270,250.00

$42,475.00

$250,000.00 $306,300.00 $300.00 $34,500.00 $15,000,000.00 $1,200.00

$10,700.00

$2,496.00

Remainder $5,000,000.00

FY2010 FUND SWEEPS

Fund Narcotics Profit Forfeiture Fund IL State Podiatric Disciplinary Fund Vehicle Inspection Fund Local Tourism Fund Build IL Capital Revolving Loan Fund IL Equity Fund Large Business Attraction Fund International and Promotional Fund Public Infrastructure Construction Loan 0993 Revolving Fund 0997 Insurance Financial Regulation Fund

No. 0951 0954 0963 0969 0973 0974 0975 0984

47 of 68

Total

July $21,725.00 $50,000.00 $1,250,000.00 $2,749,820.00 $964,226.00 $880.00 $3,390.00 $10,510.00

$2,811,232.00 $702,808.00 $5,881,180.00 $1,470,295.00 $351,738,973.00 $87,084,743.25

Statutory Amount $86,900.00 $200,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $10,999,280.00 $3,856,904.00 $3,520.00 $13,560.00 $42,040.00

PA 96-44 & 96-45

$280.00

Sep

-9-

$702,808.00 $1,470,295.00 $77,482,782.25

Oct $21,725.00 $50,000.00 $1,250,000.00 $2,749,820.00 $964,226.00 $880.00 $3,390.00 $10,510.00

Dec

($3,255,001.86) ($126,303.00)

Nov

Apr

$702,808.00 $1,470,295.00 $58,682,916.39 $0.00

$964,226.00 $880.00 $3,390.00 $10,510.00

Jan $21,725.00 $50,000.00 $1,250,000.00

$2,108,424.00 $4,410,885.00 $219,869,417.03

TOTAL $65,175.00 $150,000.00 $3,750,000.00 $5,499,640.00 $2,892,678.00 $2,640.00 $10,170.00 $31,530.00

$702,808.00 $1,470,295.00 $131,869,555.97

Remainder $21,725.00 $50,000.00 $1,250,000.00 $5,499,640.00 $964,226.00 $880.00 $3,390.00 $10,510.00

REVENUE January Revenues Grow Due to Federal Sources Jim Muschinske, Revenue Manager

fter experiencing a drop off the previous month, federal sources rebounded in January. While most of the economic sources continued to struggle, those losses were more than offset by federal reimbursements. As a result, net base monthly revenues grew $184 million. January had one fewer receipting day as compared to one year earlier.

sizable gain, up $382 million due to higher reimbursable spending.

Year to Date Through the first seven months of the fiscal year, overall base revenues are down $45 million. However, sizable growth in federal sources masks the extremely poor performance of the other revenue areas. In fact, when $899 million in federal source growth is excluded, all other revenue would be down a crippling $944 million. Despite being in the early stages of a recovery, the larger economically related sources such as income and sales continued to suffer from the recessionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s effect. As continually mentioned in previous revenue briefings, it will be some time before improvement in receipts can be expected.

Gross personal income tax plummeted $223 million in January, or $202 million net of refunds, and reaffirmed the road to recovery will be dotted with potholes. Sales tax receipts, while experiencing a decline of $19 million, is at least giving appearances that a bottom has formed. Public utility taxes were down $12 million, inheritance tax off $8 million, other sources declined $5 million, insurance taxes fell $3 million, and corporate franchise taxes dipped $1 million.

Through January, gross personal income tax is down $571 million, or $516 million net of refunds. Sales tax is down $478 million, while gross corporate income tax has declined $102 million, or $84 million net of refunds. Public utility taxes are down $53 million, while all remaining sources showed a net drop of $57 million.

Only a few sources enjoyed gains in January. Gross corporate income taxes were up $18 million, or $16 million net of refunds. Liquor taxes managed to gain $3 million, while vehicle use tax eked out $1 million in growth. Overall transfers rose $32 million for the month. While the lottery was again flat, other transfers rose $72 million due to the scheduled third quarter fund sweeps. Riverboat transfers partly offset those gains, falling $40 million. The sizable loss appears to have been due in part to the timing of transfers. As mentioned, federal sources posted a

With the third quarter funds sweeps, overall transfers are up $244 million. Other transfers are up $292 million, while riverboat transfers are down $48 million. Federal sources have benefited from increased reimbursable spending and are up a whopping $899 million.

48 of 68 -10-

GENERAL FUNDS RECEIPTS: JANUARY FY 2010 vs. FY 2009 ($ million)

Revenue Sources State Taxes Personal Income Tax Corporate Income Tax (regular) Sales Taxes Public Utility Taxes (regular) Cigarette Tax Liquor Gallonage Taxes Vehicle Use Tax Inheritance Tax (Gross) Insurance Taxes and Fees Corporate Franchise Tax & Fees Interest on State Funds & Investments Cook County IGT Other Sources Subtotal

Jan. FY 2010

Jan. FY 2009

$ CHANGE

% CHANGE

$1,044 89 552 92 29 19 2 15 2 16 1 0 46 $1,907

$1,267 71 571 104 29 16 1 23 5 17 1 0 51 $2,156

($223) $18 ($19) ($12) $0 $3 $1 ($8) ($3) ($1) $0 $0 ($5) ($249)

-17.6% 25.4% -3.3% -11.5% 0.0% 18.8% 100.0% -34.8% -60.0% -5.9% 0.0% N/A -9.8% -11.5%

Transfers Lottery Riverboat transfers & receipts Other Total State Sources

46 15 88 $2,056

46 55 16 $2,273

$0 ($40) $72 ($217)

0.0% -72.7% 450.0% -9.5%

Federal Sources Total Federal & State Sources

$638 $2,694

$256 $2,529

$382 $165

149.2% 6.5%

($102) ($15)

($123) (13)

$21 ($2)

-17.1% 15.4%

$2,577 $0 $206 $150 $2,933

$2,393 $0 $0 $0 $2,393

$184 $0 $206 $150 $540

7.7% N/A N/A N/A 22.6%

Nongeneral Funds Distribution: Refund Fund Personal Income Tax Corporate Income Tax Subtotal General Funds Short-Term Borrowing Pension Contribution Fund Transfer Budget Stabilization Fund Transfer Total General Funds

CGFA SOURCE: Office of the Comptroller: Some totals may not equal, due to rounding

2-Feb-10

49 of 68 -11-

GENERAL FUNDS RECEIPTS: YEAR TO DATE FY 2010 vs. FY 2009 ($ million)

Revenue Sources

State Taxes Personal Income Tax Corporate Income Tax (regular) Sales Taxes Public Utility Taxes (regular) Cigarette Tax Liquor Gallonage Taxes Vehicle Use Tax Inheritance Tax (Gross) Insurance Taxes and Fees Corporate Franchise Tax & Fees Interest on State Funds & Investments Cook County IGT Other Sources Subtotal Transfers Lottery Riverboat transfers & receipts Other Total State Sources Federal Sources Total Federal & State Sources Nongeneral Funds Distribution: Refund Fund Personal Income Tax Corporate Income Tax Subtotal General Funds

Short-Term Borrowing Pension Contribution Fund Transfer Budget Stabilization Fund Transfer Total General Funds

FY 2010

FY 2009

CHANGE FROM FY 2009

% CHANGE

$5,259 711 3,738 610 204 95 17 131 159 122 16 56 229 $11,347

$5,830 813 4,216 663 204 99 16 168 144 123 33 65 234 $12,608

($571) ($102) ($478) ($53) $0 ($4) $1 ($37) $15 ($1) ($17) ($9) ($5) ($1,261)

-9.8% -12.5% -11.3% -8.0% 0.0% -4.0% 6.3% -22.0% 10.4% -0.8% -51.5% -13.8% -2.1% -10.0%

339 257 486 $12,429 $3,498 $15,927

339 305 194 $13,446 $2,599 $16,045

$0 ($48) $292 ($1,017) $899 ($118)

0.0% -15.7% 150.5% -7.6% 34.6% -0.7%

($513) ($124)

($568) ($142)

$55 $18

-9.7% -12.7%

$15,290 $1,250 $206 $666 $17,412

$15,335 $1,400 $0 $276 $17,011

($45) ($150) $206 $390 $401

-0.3% N/A N/A 141.3% 2.4%

SOURCE: Office of the Comptroller, State of Illinois: Some totals may not equal, due to rounding. CGFA

2-Feb-10

50 of 68 -12-

PENSIONS RETIREMENT SYSTEMS FUNDING PROJECTIONS Dan Hankiewicz, Pension Manager FUNDING PROJECTIONS FOR THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS System Projections Based on Laws in Effect on June 30, 2009 ($ in Millions)

Fiscal Year

Annual Payroll

Total State Contribution

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045

17,269.9 17,938.3 18,593.8 19,321.3 20,089.1 20,904.0 21,772.2 22,688.3 23,655.3 24,673.1 25,743.4 26,869.6 28,053.7 29,296.2 30,592.6 31,935.4 33,334.6 34,791.6 36,306.4 37,896.5 39,564.3 41,272.2 43,082.0 44,970.2 46,947.4 49,024.5 51,205.9 53,502.1 55,909.0 58,429.6 61,080.9 63,881.9 66,851.8 69,970.5 73,229.4 76,627.2

4,046.6 4,576.3 4,842.1 5,156.3 5,477.4 5,806.7 6,056.3 6,310.5 6,579.1 6,862.2 7,154.1 7,461.9 7,786.6 8,128.1 8,478.8 8,842.7 9,230.4 9,635.2 10,050.4 10,487.8 10,941.6 11,406.2 11,910.3 12,444.8 13,126.9 13,705.2 14,312.5 14,951.7 15,621.7 16,323.1 17,060.3 17,838.2 18,661.6 19,525.6 20,428.0 21,368.7

State Contribution Total Employee Contribution as a % of Payroll 23.4% 25.5% 26.0% 26.7% 27.3% 27.8% 27.8% 27.8% 27.8% 27.8% 27.8% 27.8% 27.8% 27.7% 27.7% 27.7% 27.7% 27.7% 27.7% 27.7% 27.7% 27.6% 27.6% 27.7% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9%

1,486.3 1,540.7 1,598.2 1,658.6 1,723.7 1,794.0 1,869.5 1,949.8 2,035.1 2,124.5 2,218.4 2,317.9 2,422.9 2,533.5 2,648.8 2,768.4 2,894.0 3,024.1 3,156.5 3,294.9 3,441.5 3,590.5 3,747.2 3,911.9 4,085.9 4,266.0 4,453.7 4,649.8 4,862.1 5,085.4 5,315.7 5,560.9 5,823.8 6,103.5 6,389.6 6,687.9

Accrued Liabilities

Assets

Unfunded Liabilities

132,529.0 139,157.1 145,919.2 152,807.5 159,829.2 166,997.8 174,320.8 181,805.4 189,469.8 197,320.2 205,372.8 213,650.6 222,172.9 230,962.7 240,034.0 249,397.1 259,078.5 269,088.9 279,444.7 290,166.7 301,206.4 312,645.0 324,506.0 336,805.0 349,563.5 362,817.6 376,610.5 390,990.4 405,985.4 421,619.5 437,958.8 455,054.2 473,018.8 491,924.6 511,809.1 532,707.4

66,011.1 68,436.6 71,004.2 73,751.8 78,152.0 82,769.6 87,535.5 92,461.8 97,584.1 102,920.3 108,483.5 114,309.9 120,437.3 126,911.5 133,763.8 141,042.5 148,789.3 157,052.6 165,858.2 175,236.4 185,206.1 195,858.8 207,290.8 219,583.3 233,109.3 247,669.0 263,372.9 280,332.4 298,703.8 318,607.2 340,156.7 363,498.9 388,817.0 416,499.1 446,641.2 479,437.7

66,517.8 70,720.5 74,915.0 79,055.7 81,677.1 84,228.2 86,785.3 89,343.6 91,885.8 94,399.9 96,889.3 99,340.7 101,735.6 104,051.2 106,270.2 108,354.6 110,289.2 112,036.3 113,586.6 114,930.3 116,000.3 116,786.2 117,215.1 117,221.7 116,454.2 115,148.6 113,237.6 110,658.0 107,281.6 103,012.3 97,802.1 91,555.3 84,201.8 75,425.5 65,167.9 53,269.6

Funded Ratio

49.8% 49.2% 48.7% 48.3% 48.9% 49.6% 50.2% 50.9% 51.5% 52.2% 52.8% 53.5% 54.2% 54.9% 55.7% 56.6% 57.4% 58.4% 59.4% 60.4% 61.5% 62.6% 63.9% 65.2% 66.7% 68.3% 69.9% 71.7% 73.6% 75.6% 77.7% 79.9% 82.2% 84.7% 87.3% 90.0%

51 of 68 -13-

FUNDING PROJECTIONS FOR THE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM System Projections Based on Laws in Effect on June 30, 2009 ($ in millions) Fiscal Year

Annual Payroll

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045

8,929.0 9,384.5 9,732.6 10,144.7 10,585.7 11,060.7 11,571.2 12,115.2 12,688.1 13,290.4 13,925.6 14,593.9 15,295.7 16,030.4 16,793.5 17,587.7 18,412.2 19,262.9 20,140.2 21,059.4 22,019.0 23,013.6 24,040.8 25,100.4 26,202.0 27,355.3 28,563.9 29,836.6 31,167.4 32,560.5 34,032.7 35,602.1 37,284.2 39,058.7 40,912.7 42,843.5

Total State Contribution 2,087.7 2,357.0 2,429.7 2,549.0 2,676.6 2,813.9 2,945.8 3,084.3 3,230.2 3,383.5 3,545.3 3,715.4 3,894.1 4,081.1 4,275.4 4,477.6 4,687.5 4,904.1 5,127.4 5,361.4 5,605.7 5,858.9 6,120.4 6,390.2 6,670.7 6,964.2 7,271.9 7,596.0 7,934.8 8,289.4 8,664.2 9,063.8 9,492.0 9,943.8 10,415.8 10,907.3

State Contribution Total Employee as a % of Contribution Payroll 23.4% 25.1% 25.0% 25.1% 25.3% 25.4% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5% 25.5%

909.6 948.3 984.6 1,023.2 1,065.6 1,112.3 1,162.9 1,217.4 1,275.1 1,335.4 1,398.8 1,466.2 1,537.4 1,612.4 1,690.4 1,771.4 1,856.5 1,944.0 2,031.4 2,122.6 2,219.2 2,318.3 2,419.6 2,525.6 2,637.4 2,751.7 2,870.2 2,993.3 3,128.8 3,271.6 3,417.7 3,575.0 3,745.9 3,929.5 4,115.1 4,308.5

Accrued Liability

Assets

Unfunded Liabilities

76,853.8 80,752.3 84,730.2 88,791.5 92,951.4 97,234.8 101,663.7 106,259.4 111,039.7 116,018.5 121,214.8 126,650.6 132,349.1 138,328.5 144,602.6 151,184.2 158,086.5 165,314.5 172,872.5 180,773.3 189,028.0 197,644.3 206,621.8 215,950.6 225,625.6 235,657.9 246,065.4 256,870.8 268,075.0 279,677.9 291,717.8 304,227.8 317,298.9 330,985.9 345,307.7 360,286.1

40,422.3 43,040.2 45,693.3 48,414.4 51,221.8 54,145.3 57,198.6 60,412.0 63,812.3 67,415.8 71,242.6 75,322.6 79,686.3 84,367.4 89,395.1 94,788.0 100,575.1 106,782.8 113,421.3 120,493.9 128,051.7 136,121.9 144,730.4 153,893.3 163,633.7 173,975.1 184,965.7 196,651.5 209,118.2 222,411.7 236,569.0 251,659.7 267,783.9 285,241.5 304,034.5 324,257.5

36,431.5 37,712.1 39,036.9 40,377.2 41,729.5 43,089.5 44,465.1 45,847.5 47,227.3 48,602.7 49,972.2 51,328.0 52,662.8 53,961.1 55,207.5 56,396.2 57,511.4 58,531.7 59,451.3 60,279.5 60,976.4 61,522.4 61,891.3 62,057.4 61,991.8 61,682.8 61,099.6 60,219.3 58,956.8 57,266.2 55,148.8 52,568.0 49,515.0 45,744.4 41,273.3 36,028.6

Funded Ratio

52.6% 53.3% 53.9% 54.5% 55.1% 55.7% 56.3% 56.9% 57.5% 58.1% 58.8% 59.5% 60.2% 61.0% 61.8% 62.7% 63.6% 64.6% 65.6% 66.7% 67.7% 68.9% 70.0% 71.3% 72.5% 73.8% 75.2% 76.6% 78.0% 79.5% 81.1% 82.7% 84.4% 86.2% 88.0% 90.0%

52 of 68 -14-

FUNDING PROJECTIONS FOR THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM System Projections Based on Laws in Effect on June 30, 2009 ($ in millions)

Fiscal Year

Annual Payroll

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045

4,113.0 4,194.2 4,359.8 4,525.4 4,692.5 4,863.7 5,039.3 5,219.7 5,406.3 5,600.2 5,801.9 6,011.5 6,230.2 6,456.9 6,693.5 6,927.6 7,170.1 7,425.2 7,691.6 7,971.8 8,267.4 8,545.7 8,868.4 9,211.7 9,575.1 9,958.5 10,361.8 10,785.0 11,227.3 11,687.5 12,165.7 12,662.5 13,177.8 13,711.0 14,264.0 14,836.7

Total State Contribution 1,167.1 1,268.9 1,361.7 1,456.5 1,551.1 1,646.1 1,706.8 1,767.9 1,831.2 1,897.0 1,964.4 2,034.6 2,108.1 2,184.6 2,263.1 2,341.2 2,423.5 2,510.4 2,599.9 2,694.5 2,793.3 2,886.3 2,996.3 3,114.6 3,353.6 3,487.9 3,629.1 3,777.3 3,932.3 4,093.4 4,260.9 4,434.9 4,615.4 4,802.2 4,995.8 5,196.4

State Contribution Total Employee as a % of Contribution Payroll 28.4% 30.3% 31.2% 32.2% 33.1% 33.8% 33.9% 33.9% 33.9% 33.9% 33.9% 33.8% 33.8% 33.8% 33.8% 33.8% 33.8% 33.8% 33.8% 33.8% 33.8% 33.8% 33.8% 33.8% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%

234.6 239.7 249.4 259.1 268.8 278.8 288.9 299.3 310.0 321.2 332.8 344.8 357.3 370.2 383.5 396.7 410.3 424.6 439.5 455.2 471.9 486.7 505.0 524.5 545.4 567.4 590.8 615.3 640.9 667.6 695.2 723.9 753.6 784.3 816.0 848.8

Accrued Liability

Assets

Unfunded Liabilities

26,642.2 28,074.0 29,559.4 31,091.8 32,666.5 34,278.7 35,921.8 37,591.7 39,287.1 41,002.5 42,733.0 44,475.1 46,222.5 47,974.2 49,728.0 51,477.5 53,227.4 54,976.9 56,731.4 58,497.2 60,207.5 61,932.6 63,685.3 65,482.6 67,339.3 69,267.8 71,283.1 73,398.3 75,625.0 77,971.6 80,448.2 83,062.3 85,820.0 88,729.4 91,796.8 95,027.5

11,090.9 11,268.8 11,518.4 11,845.2 12,855.8 13,940.1 15,060.0 16,208.4 17,386.6 18,591.8 19,818.2 21,065.7 22,333.4 23,623.3 24,934.0 26,261.5 27,618.5 29,011.2 30,445.3 31,933.4 33,430.8 34,983.8 36,631.9 38,407.6 40,623.0 43,043.9 45,701.1 48,625.5 51,848.5 55,399.9 59,312.9 63,620.8 68,357.7 73,561.2 79,270.8 85,527.6

15,551.3 16,805.2 18,041.0 19,246.6 19,810.8 20,338.5 20,861.8 21,383.3 21,900.6 22,410.6 22,914.8 23,409.4 23,889.2 24,350.9 24,794.0 25,216.0 25,608.9 25,965.7 26,286.1 26,563.8 26,776.7 26,948.8 27,053.4 27,075.0 26,716.3 26,223.9 25,582.0 24,772.8 23,776.5 22,571.7 21,135.3 19,441.5 17,462.3 15,168.2 12,526.0 9,499.9

Funded Ratio

41.6% 40.1% 39.0% 38.1% 39.4% 40.7% 41.9% 43.1% 44.3% 45.3% 46.4% 47.4% 48.3% 49.2% 50.1% 51.0% 51.9% 52.8% 53.7% 54.6% 55.5% 56.5% 57.5% 58.7% 60.3% 62.1% 64.1% 66.2% 68.6% 71.1% 73.7% 76.6% 79.7% 82.9% 86.4% 90.0%

53 of 68 -15-

FUNDING PROJECTIONS FOR THE STATE UNIVERSITIES RETIREMENT SYSTEM System Projections Based on Laws in Effect on June 30, 2009 ($ in millions)

Fiscal Year

Annual Payroll

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045

4,051.5 4,175.3 4,309.2 4,451.3 4,603.7 4,765.3 4,938.8 5,121.7 5,319.9 5,531.8 5,755.2 5,993.4 6,246.1 6,516.1 6,801.1 7,103.7 7,423.3 7,761.4 8,118.8 8,495.4 8,893.2 9,313.0 9,756.8 10,225.5 10,720.4 11,242.9 11,793.7 12,374.6 12,988.1 13,634.4 14,313.3 15,025.4 15,774.3 16,560.6 17,387.1 18,254.7

Total State Contribution 702.5 848.1 944.6 1,039.8 1,134.2 1,226.7 1,278.4 1,328.1 1,382.3 1,440.8 1,498.0 1,559.9 1,626.5 1,698.5 1,770.3 1,847.9 1,936.0 2,029.7 2,124.5 2,225.5 2,328.4 2,438.7 2,561.9 2,697.9 2,848.1 2,988.3 3,136.2 3,292.1 3,456.9 3,630.6 3,813.1 4,004.6 4,205.9 4,417.5 4,639.8 4,873.3

State Contribution as a % of Payroll 17.3% 20.3% 21.9% 23.4% 24.6% 25.7% 25.9% 25.9% 26.0% 26.0% 26.0% 26.0% 26.0% 26.1% 26.0% 26.0% 26.1% 26.2% 26.2% 26.2% 26.2% 26.2% 26.3% 26.4% 26.6% 26.6% 26.6% 26.6% 26.6% 26.6% 26.6% 26.7% 26.7% 26.7% 26.7% 26.7%

Employee Contribution

Accrued Liability

Assets

Unfunded Liabilities

324.5 334.4 345.2 356.5 368.8 381.7 395.6 410.2 426.1 443.1 461.0 480.1 500.3 521.9 544.8 569.0 594.6 621.7 650.3 680.5 712.3 746.0 781.5 819.1 858.7 900.6 944.7 991.2 1,040.3 1,092.1 1,146.5 1,203.5 1,263.5 1,326.5 1,392.7 1,462.2

27,165.8 28,386.9 29,606.5 30,818.6 32,020.4 33,204.3 34,363.1 35,486.4 36,576.1 37,628.8 38,647.1 39,635.6 40,596.3 41,534.9 42,453.9 43,357.7 44,254.1 45,149.4 46,050.2 46,958.4 47,880.5 48,819.2 49,785.5 50,786.9 51,835.4 52,942.6 54,118.8 55,375.4 56,727.7 58,190.9 59,782.2 61,511.2 63,393.3 65,437.1 67,654.3 70,052.2

13,807.3 13,423.8 13,074.2 12,756.5 13,281.7 13,832.0 14,362.3 14,863.3 15,339.2 15,793.9 16,226.0 16,642.1 17,049.8 17,458.9 17,872.9 18,325.9 18,815.9 19,358.1 19,962.3 20,642.8 21,410.9 22,283.9 23,290.8 24,462.3 25,833.2 27,415.7 29,240.0 31,338.9 33,750.0 36,516.0 39,679.1 43,280.8 47,368.3 51,989.6 57,197.1 63,045.2

13,358.5 14,963.1 16,532.3 18,062.1 18,738.7 19,372.3 20,000.8 20,623.1 21,236.9 21,834.9 22,421.1 22,993.5 23,546.5 24,076.0 24,581.0 25,031.8 25,438.2 25,791.3 26,087.9 26,315.6 26,469.6 26,535.3 26,494.7 26,324.6 26,002.2 25,526.9 24,878.8 24,036.5 22,977.7 21,674.9 20,103.1 18,230.4 16,025.0 13,447.5 10,457.2 7,007.0

Funded Ratio

50.8% 47.3% 44.2% 41.4% 41.5% 41.7% 41.8% 41.9% 41.9% 42.0% 42.0% 42.0% 42.0% 42.0% 42.1% 42.3% 42.5% 42.9% 43.3% 44.0% 44.7% 45.6% 46.8% 48.2% 49.8% 51.8% 54.0% 56.6% 59.5% 62.8% 66.4% 70.4% 74.7% 79.4% 84.5% 90.0%

54 of 68 -16-

FUNDING PROJECTIONS FOR THE JUDGES RETIREMENT SYSTEM System Projections Based on Laws in Effect on June 30, 2009 ($ in millions)

Fiscal Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045

Annual Payroll 161.8 169.2 176.5 183.6 190.4 196.9 204.8 213.0 221.5 230.4 239.6 249.2 259.1 269.5 280.3 291.5 303.1 315.3 327.9 341.0 354.6 368.8 383.6 398.9 414.9 431.5 448.7 466.7 485.3 504.8 524.9 545.9 567.8 590.5 614.1 638.7

Total State Contribution 78.8 90.3 93.7 98.0 102.1 106.1 110.7 115.1 119.7 124.5 129.4 134.6 139.8 145.3 150.7 156.3 162.8 169.6 176.3 183.4 190.3 197.7 206.0 215.2 225.8 234.9 244.3 254.0 264.2 274.8 285.8 297.2 309.1 321.4 334.3 347.7

State Contribution Total Employee Contribution as a % of Payroll 48.7% 53.4% 53.1% 53.4% 53.6% 53.9% 54.0% 54.0% 54.0% 54.0% 54.0% 54.0% 54.0% 53.9% 53.8% 53.6% 53.7% 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 53.7% 53.6% 53.7% 53.9% 54.4% 54.4% 54.4% 54.4% 54.4% 54.4% 54.4% 54.4% 54.4% 54.4% 54.4% 54.4%

15.8 16.5 17.2 17.9 18.6 19.2 20.0 20.8 21.6 22.5 23.4 24.3 25.3 26.3 27.3 28.4 29.6 30.7 32.0 33.2 34.6 36.0 37.4 38.9 40.4 42.1 43.8 45.5 47.3 49.2 51.2 53.2 55.4 57.6 59.9 62.3

Accrued Liability 1,618.7 1,691.9 1,767.8 1,846.8 1,928.4 2,013.7 2,101.8 2,193.1 2,287.6 2,386.1 2,488.0 2,593.9 2,703.6 2,817.7 2,935.6 3,057.5 3,183.4 3,313.9 3,448.8 3,588.2 3,732.6 3,882.4 4,037.5 4,198.8 4,366.1 4,540.2 4,721.3 4,909.9 5,106.5 5,311.4 5,525.0 5,747.9 5,980.7 6,224.0 6,478.2 6,743.9

Assets

623.9 640.7 659.3 680.7 737.6 797.1 859.2 922.9 990.3 1,062.1 1,138.3 1,219.3 1,305.1 1,396.4 1,492.6 1,594.3 1,702.3 1,817.5 1,939.7 2,069.7 2,207.6 2,354.7 2,512.0 2,681.3 2,864.7 3,061.5 3,272.7 3,499.7 3,743.9 4,006.6 4,289.3 4,593.9 4,922.1 5,275.8 5,657.2 6,069.5

Unfunded Liabilities 994.8 1051.3 1108.5 1166.1 1190.7 1216.6 1242.5 1270.3 1297.3 1323.9 1349.7 1374.6 1398.5 1421.3 1443.0 1463.2 1481.1 1496.4 1509.0 1518.5 1524.9 1527.7 1525.5 1517.4 1501.4 1478.8 1448.6 1410.2 1362.6 1304.8 1235.6 1154.0 1058.7 948.2 821.0 674.4

Funded Ratio

38.5% 37.9% 37.3% 36.9% 38.3% 39.6% 40.9% 42.1% 43.3% 44.5% 45.8% 47.0% 48.3% 49.6% 50.8% 52.1% 53.5% 54.8% 56.2% 57.7% 59.1% 60.7% 62.2% 63.9% 65.6% 67.4% 69.3% 71.3% 73.3% 75.4% 77.6% 79.9% 82.3% 84.8% 87.3% 90.0%

55 of 68 -17-

FUNDING PROJECTIONS FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT SYSTEM System Projections Based on Laws in Effect on June 30, 2009 ($ in millions)

Fiscal Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045

Annual Payroll 14.6 15.2 15.7 16.4 16.9 17.4 18.1 18.8 19.5 20.3 21.1 21.7 22.5 23.3 24.2 24.9 25.9 26.9 28.0 28.8 30.0 31.1 32.4 33.7 35.0 36.4 37.8 39.3 40.9 42.5 44.2 45.9 47.8 49.6 51.5 53.6

Total State Contribution 10.5 12.1 12.4 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.6 15.1 15.8 16.4 17.0 17.4 18.1 18.7 19.3 19.7 20.6 21.4 22.3 22.9 23.8 24.6 25.7 26.9 28.7 29.9 31.0 32.3 33.6 34.9 36.3 37.7 39.2 40.8 42.3 44.0

State Contribution Total Employee Contribution as a % of Payroll 71.5% 79.4% 78.7% 79.3% 79.8% 80.3% 80.6% 80.6% 80.6% 80.6% 80.6% 80.4% 80.3% 80.1% 79.7% 79.3% 79.5% 79.7% 79.6% 79.5% 79.3% 79.1% 79.4% 79.9% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1%

1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.2

Accrued Liability 248.5 252.0 255.3 258.8 262.5 266.3 270.4 274.7 279.3 284.4 289.8 295.4 301.3 307.4 313.8 320.3 327.1 334.2 341.9 349.6 357.9 366.5 375.9 386.1 397.1 409.0 421.9 435.9 451.2 467.8 485.7 505.0 525.8 548.2 572.1 597.8

Assets

66.8 63.1 59.0 55.0 55.1 55.1 55.3 55.2 55.6 56.7 58.3 60.2 62.7 65.6 69.1 72.9 77.5 83.0 89.6 96.7 105.1 114.5 125.7 138.8 154.7 172.9 193.4 216.7 243.3 273.0 306.4 343.6 385.0 431.0 481.7 538.0

Unfunded Liabilities 181.7 188.9 196.3 203.7 207.4 211.2 215.1 219.5 223.7 227.7 231.5 235.2 238.6 241.8 244.7 247.4 249.6 251.2 252.3 252.9 252.8 252.0 250.2 247.3 242.4 236.2 228.5 219.2 207.9 194.7 179.3 161.4 140.8 117.2 90.4 59.8

Funded Ratio

26.9% 25.0% 23.1% 21.3% 21.0% 20.7% 20.4% 20.1% 19.9% 19.9% 20.1% 20.4% 20.8% 21.3% 22.0% 22.8% 23.7% 24.8% 26.2% 27.7% 29.4% 31.2% 33.4% 36.0% 39.0% 42.3% 45.8% 49.7% 53.9% 58.4% 63.1% 68.0% 73.2% 78.6% 84.2% 90.0%

56 of 68 -18-

Print Story2/5/2010 11:42:37 AM

Print Story | Close Window

Printed from ChicagoBusiness.com

Illinois Supreme Court strikes down medical malpractice caps By Mike Colias Feb. 04, 2010 (Crain’s) — The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a 4-year-old law that caps jury payouts in medical malpractice cases, infuriating doctors and hospitals that claim those caps were helping to tame oncesoaring liability costs. The court ruled that the caps on pain and suffering and other non-economic damages — $500,000 per case for doctors and $1 million for hospitals — are unconstitutional. Those limits were passed by the Legislature in 2005 after a fierce lobbying battle by medical providers, who said spiking liability insurance premiums were driving neurosurgeons, obstetricians and other doctors out of Illinois. The court ruled that the law violated the Illinois Constitution’s “separation of powers” clause, essentially finding that lawmakers interfered with the right of juries to determine fair damages. It upheld a 2007 ruling by a Cook County Circuit Court judge. It’s the third time the state Supreme Court has quashed limits on medical malpractice awards, having tossed out similar laws in 1976 and 1997. Whether removing the caps will have an effect on the number of malpractice lawsuits or the premiums doctors and hospitals pay for insurance is a source of endless debate between the two sides. Medical groups and their insurance companies contend the ruling could prompt more malpractice suits, which have dropped since the law took effect in August 2005, and rates could rise again following several years of stability. Since the law took hold, “patient access to health care has expanded, frivolous lawsuits have ebbed and malpractice rates have leveled off or decreased for many doctors,” said Harold Jensen, chairman of Chicagobased ISMIE Mutual Insurance Co., the state’s largest malpractice insurer. “This is practical proof the law is working.” Liability insurance rates for Illinois doctors generally have held steady or dipped slightly since the caps took effect, according to survey data from Medical Liability Monitor, an Oak Park-based trade publication. Illinois’ malpractice-insurance rates have followed national trends. Trial lawyers and other critics of the caps contend that the flattening of rates has been the result of natural underwriting cycles and other state reforms that helped make the Illinois’ insurance market more competitive. “For years the insurance industry has tried to convince the public that patients who are victims of medical errors are responsible for the increased health care costs,” said a statement from the Illinois Trial Lawyers Assn., the chief opponent of the caps on damages. “But . . . the Illinois Supreme Court has decided that the health care crisis cannot be solved by further hurting the patients who are victims of medical errors.” In declaring the jury-award caps unconstitutional, the court’s decision also scraps several other insurance reforms included in the original law that both sides have said helped ease liability costs. One example: A provision that forced ISMIE, the state’s dominant malpractice insurer, to disclose the data it

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/printStory.pl?news_id=36984

57 of 68

Print Story 2/5/2010 11:42:37 AM uses to set rates. That has made it easier for smaller companies to compete for business, luring a few firms back into Illinois. Hospitals worry that â&#x20AC;&#x153;insurance companies that came into Illinois might decide they no longer want to do business,â&#x20AC;? said Mark Deaton, general counsel at the Illinois Hospital Assn.

58 of 68

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/printStory.pl?news_id=36984

Statement From IHA President Maryjane A. Wurth on Illinois Supreme Court Medical Liability Ruling -- NAPER...

Statement From IHA President Maryjane A. Wurth on Illinois Supreme Court Medical Liability Ruling NAPERVILLE, Ill., Feb. 4 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Illinois Hospital Association is disappointed that the Illinois Supreme Court has struck down critically needed medical liability reforms that were improving health care access throughout the state and restoring predictability to our broken medical liability system. In doing so, the Court has rejected the clear will of the people of Illinois who called upon their legislators to enact this fair and sensible landmark legislation. In 2005, the General Assembly determined that there was a real public health crisis driving physicians out of Illinois and making health care more expensive and less available. Accordingly, it enacted a bipartisan and comprehensive solution that included judicial reform, strengthened insurance regulation and improved physician discipline. The hospital community is deeply concerned that this decision will renew the malpractice lawsuit crisis and make it more difficult for Illinoisans to access or afford health care as liability costs for physicians and hospitals are driven to unsustainable levels. Hospitals across the state will again face even greater challenges recruiting and retaining physicians, especially specialists such as neurosurgeons and obstetricians, who were leaving Illinois during the height of the crisis. This decision and its dire repercussions for the health care delivery system highlight the critical need for the President and Congress to embrace serious and meaningful medical liability reform as part of health care reform. All plausible forms of medical liability reform, such as arbitration, specialized courts and early settlement offer approaches, should be explored as part of health reform. However, caps on medical liability damages in many states (33) across the country have already proven to be effective at reducing health care delivery costs. We call on the President and Congress to include this important cost-reducing solution to the federal health reform package. Background IHA strongly supported this legislation to restore predictability to Illinois' broken liability system that drove costs for hospitals and physicians to unsustainable levels and jeopardized patients' access to health care. The legislation included: z z z z z z

Caps on non-economic damages ($500,000 for physicians; $1 million for hospitals) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; but NO limits on economic damages, such as future lost wages and all past, present and future medical costs; Structured awards to more efficiently provide for future medical care of injured plaintiffs and reduce medical liability costs (e.g., periodic payments such as annuities, rather than lump sum payments); Insurance regulations, including new data reporting to promote greater competition in the marketplace and to stabilize premiums; Strengthened physician disciplinary regulations; Expert witness standards; Apology protection.

The Illinois Hospital Association is an advocate for 200 Illinois hospitals and health systems. See IHA's web site at www.ihatoday.org. SOURCE Illinois Hospital Association RELATED LINKS http://www.ihatoday.org

Find this article at: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-iha-president-maryjane-a-wurth-on-illinois-supreme-court-medical-liability-ruling-83557887.html

Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

59 of 68

http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Statement+From+IHA+President+Maryjane+A.+Wu...

Daily Herald | Naperville explores ways to fill remaining budget gap2/5/2010 9:07:01 AM

Naperville explores ways to fill remaining budget gap By Melissa Jenco | Daily Herald Staff

Published: 1/26/2010 12:00 AM

This spring, Naperville's motor fuel taxes and garbage collection fees likely will go up, while money for cultural grants will go down. City councilmen on Monday gave preliminary approval to the tax changes as they struggled to fill the last $4.5 million of what was once a $14.1 million budget gap for the upcoming fiscal year, which begins May 1. The city plans to add 3 cents to the current 2-cents-per-gallon gas tax. The additional money will help fund road improvements. Councilman Doug Krause said the gas tax hasn't been increased since the early 1990s. "That's the problem when we don't look at fees on a regular basis," he said. "I think 3 cents is where you need to go because ... people want good roads." Councilman Kenn Miller said most gas stations are on the city's perimeter, so he does not expect the increase to have a significant impact on the city as a whole. Naperville expects to raise an additional $2.1 million from the gas tax increase. In addition, councilmen reached a consensus on charging each household $3.50 per month for garbage pickup, while keeping it as a "take all" program. That move should generate just less than $1.7 million The tax that garnered the most extensive discussion Monday was the 1 percent citywide food and beverage tax that goes toward Special Events and Cultural Amenities grants. Some councilmen have complained it now generates significantly more money than was anticipated when the grant program first started. In the current fiscal year, the city doled out about $2.9 million in cultural grants. Councilman Grant Wehrli previously has called for eliminating the tax entirely; he's said it is "eroding the spirit of Naperville" by discouraging grassroots efforts. Councilman Robert Fieseler said it doesn't fund core city services, and Councilman Jim Boyajian said too many groups have grown dependent upon it. But Miller argued the money benefits not-for-profits that raise money for good causes. Ultimately, the council decided to cut the grant funding in half, but will do so over the course of two years to give groups time to adjust. The other half of the money generated by the food and beverage tax will be diverted into the city's general fund. The city expects to be able to put about $750,000 into its coffers in the first year. To fill the rest of the budget hole, the city is cutting spending in each department and reducing services, such as meter readings and front desk hours at the police station. It also recently eliminated 49 employee positions - 22 that were filled and 27 that were vacant. The city will hold a final budget workshop on March 1, followed by a public hearing April 7 and budget adoption April 20.

60 of 68

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/print/?id=353896

More taxes, fees due in Naperville :: Naperville Sun :: Local News 2/5/2010 9:07:50 AM Back to regular view

Print this page

NaperSun.com Member of Sun-Times Media

Search » Site All Papers Web Search by

YAHOO! Become a member of our community!

BECOME A MEMBER!

What's this?

PHOTOS: ARREST MUGS» More Naperville police news

CANDLESTICK MAKER» Hand-crafted soy candles

STATE OF THE CITY» Pradel: Hard times in Naperville

PHOTOS: CELEBRATIONS» Commemorate your event

More taxes, fees due in Naperville Comments January 26, 2010 By KATHY CICHON kcichon@stmedianetwork.com Motorists filling up the gas tank in Naperville can expect to pay more in the future as the city looks to close its budget deficit. Residents will pay a monthly fee for garbage collection. And a portion of the funds generated through the citywide food and beverage tax — currently earmarked for the Special Events and Cultural Amenities grants — will likely be diverted to the city's general fund. During a nearly 4½ hour workshop Monday night, the City Council debated ways to generate revenue to help close the multimillion-dollar deficit. By the end of the night, the council had informally agreed to institute a three cent per gallon motor fuel tax and a $3.50 per month refuse collection fee. In addition, the council agreed to allocate one quarter percent of the food and beverage tax to the city's general fund for the coming fiscal year (FY 2011), and another quarter percent the following year. "It is our intention to have all of these sources become effective May 1 of this year," City Manager Doug Krieger said after the workshop. Faced with a $14.1 million deficit for the coming year, the city had trimmed the shortfall through cost cuts and layoffs. But that still left a $5.5 million hole in the 2011 budget. The revenue generated through these "user taxes" is expected to generate $4.5 million, leaving the city with a $1 million hole remaining in the 2011 budget. The fiscal year 2011 budget begins this May 1. The local gas tax is expected to raise about $2.1 million that will be used specifically for road maintenance. Councilman Jim Boyajian expressed concerns about implementing a three cent tax, questioning if the marketplace could absorb such an increase. If the tax is "too aggressive," it would hurt the local station owners. "I believe a one-time two cent (tax) will get washed out in the marketplace, and we'll still remain competitive with Bolingbrook and the other communities," Boyajian said. But Councilman Doug Krause said the city hasn't reviewed a motor fuel tax since the early 1990s, and that the extra cent won't make much of a difference to the consumer. "The difference between 35 cents and 40 cents is not going break ..." Krause said. Council members spent some time debating on how much money to use from the SECA funds. While officials discussed cutting the grant fund in half to help close the budget gap, some council members thought it would be too drastic to the cultural organizations to do so all at once. "We shouldn't punish those who worked within the system," Councilman Kenn Miller said. During the evening the suggestion was made to use money from the city's general reserve fund, which is currently at $20.8 million. But Krieger, along with some council members, said using the reserve funds would just be pushing the problem out a year. "Fiscal year '12 doesn't look better than fiscal year '11," Krieger said. "We're going to have to work harder next year than where we're currently at this year." Np2 Nail Polish: Classic Style That Gives Back From The Makeup Divas Beauty Blog

swatch till you drop. From the function key The views expressed in these blog posts are those of the author and not of the Sun-Times News Group.

61 of 68 jim yuill wrote: Do we have a car pool, pay mieage? Stop this nonsense and let the

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2011183,More-taxes-fees-coming-to-Naperville_NA01...

Pradel: Naperville is facing more hard times :: Naperville Sun :: Local News 2/5/2010 9:10:20 AM Back to regular view

Print this page

NaperSun.com Member of Sun-Times Media

Search » Site All Papers Web Search by

YAHOO! Become a member of our community!

BECOME A MEMBER!

What's this?

PHOTOS: ARREST MUGS» More Naperville police news

CANDLESTICK MAKER» Hand-crafted soy candles

STATE OF THE CITY» Pradel: Hard times in Naperville

PHOTOS: CELEBRATIONS» Commemorate your event

Pradel: Naperville is facing more hard times Comments January 26, 2010 By KATHY CICHON kcichon@stmedianetwork.com Unlike earlier years, Naperville's State of the City address Monday was not a top hat and tails occasion for the mayor. "In my previous city speeches, I've been the city's biggest cheerleader because we have had so much to celebrate," Mayor A. George Pradel said. "This is not a business as usual time for the city, and this will not be a business as usual speech." Taking on a more serious tone, Pradel told approximately 450 people gathered Monday at the Holiday Inn Select he was not trying to be the boisterous cheerleader of years past. "When I stood before you last year to deliver my address, I reported that we were in uncharted territory in Naperville, along with the rest of the world," Pradel said. "I wish I could report that our financial situation has improved; however, we are in the midst of another budget deficit. "Ladies and gentlemen, even in Naperville, as blessed as we are, we are not immune to the current economic climate." Pradel spent about an hour reviewing the city's fiscal condition at the event — hosted by the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce, as well as highlighting last year's accomplishments and plans for this year. The specter of the current economy loomed large, as the city has been working to close a $14.1 million deficit. "Even with $4.5 million of new revenue, we will still have a $1 million gap to fill. I know that as we work together as a city team, we can close this gap," Pradel said. "We aren't waiting. We are meeting in less than six hours to discuss new revenue in a workshop. Some of the revenue sources we are considering include a motor fuel tax and a refuse tax, which by the way, is consistent with the input we received from the chamber." Earlier this month, the city announced the elimination of 49 positions, of which 22 were filled. The cuts resulted in $3.6 million in budget savings, he said. Pradel praised city employees for their service, and called on them to find more ways to cut costs. "I urge employees to continue to suggest ways we can save money next year," Pradel said. "Please consider furlough days or other ways that you can help reduce spending. And I will be with you on every decision that you make. And I know we can make it if we put our arms and lock our arms together and walk through this crisis together as a city." A co-op loan tax could bring city $50M a year From TheRealDeal.Net - Articles

The U S Chamber : Yes They Did It Again From St. Cloud Personal Injury Lawyer The views expressed in these blog posts are those of the author and not of the Sun-Times News Group.

feduptaxpayer wrote: Save some money by turning off those Christmas lights that are still on every night at city hall. Eliminate all of them for 2010.Wish we had that 10 million which was wasted on the Carillon bailout now... Vote the bums OUT! 1/31/2010 8:09 PM CST on suburbanchicagonews.com

Report Abuse feduptaxpayer wrote: Earlier in the year Wehrli and these other idiots spent millions to replace bricks at the riverwalk.What a bunch of moronic idiots. CUT SPENDING and BALANCE the BUDGET. 1/31/2010 7:57 PM CST on suburbanchicagonews.com

62 of 68

Report Abuse denny wrote: Let's see, it must be some new kind of math. Lay off 20 and pretend it's

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2010620,Pradel-State-City_NA012510.article

Daily Herald | Mayor: Not business-as-usual in Naperville2/5/2010 9:09:51 AM

Mayor: Not business-as-usual in Naperville By Melissa Jenco | Daily Herald Staff

Published: 1/26/2010 12:00 AM | Updated: 1/26/2010 10:12 AM

Naperville Mayor George Pradel skipped his usual tuxedo and boisterous proclamations Monday as he delivered his 15th annual State of the City address. "This is not a business-as-usual time for the city," Pradel said. "This will not be a business-as-usual speech." Pradel told the crowd gathered for a Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce luncheon that the city has not been immune to economic troubles. It faced an $11 million budget deficit going into the current fiscal year and what was once a $14.1 million hole in the coming budget. Just weeks ago, the city eliminated 49 employee positions - 22 that were filled and 27 that were vacant. "These cuts were made after careful consideration and deliberation by the city and were extremely difficult decisions to make," Pradel said. "None of us wanted to do this and we spent a lot of time suffering over it." The cuts included 10 sworn police positions, prompting dozens of officers and their supporters to fill city council chambers less than a week ago in protest. Pradel on Monday stressed the personnel cuts will not affect public safety. Other cuts the city is making include reducing the hours of the police department front desk, reduced frequency of meter readings, suspending the Ogden Avenue corridor grant program and closing the Community Connection satellite service center. "In the end, we will emerge a stronger, more efficient organization and continue to be one of the safest cities in the nation," Pradel said. On the revenue side, the council is discussing increasing the motor fuel tax and refuse collection fees. But Pradel reiterated the council's desire not to increase the property tax rate. One of the year's biggest disappointments, Pradel said, was the city's legal battle with Councilman Richard Furstenau, who filed a civil rights lawsuit in connection to a 2006 incident in which he was accused of shoving a police officer but later acquitted. Furstenau dropped the suit and the city agreed not to try to recoup more than $1 million in legal fees. While most of Monday's speech was on the serious side, Pradel still cracked a few jokes and touted new businesses and developments such as the Delta Dental office building, Hollywood Palms Cinema, the Apple Store, iMed campus off 75th Street and North Central College's Wentz Concert Hall and Fine Arts Center as well as its combined Residential Hall and Recreation Center. Naperville also celebrated in 2009 when it learned its long-awaited Route 59 widening project had received state funding. The city also is preparing to open its 10th fire station on Feb. 9. Pradel highlighted the city's green initiatives including online payment of utility bills, the purchase of hybrid vehicles and the Smart Grid energy project. John Puscheck, new chairman of the chamber's board of directors, applauded Pradel for his candor Monday. "At times like this it's enlightening to have a mayor and city council that's willing to open everything up to the business community and the rest of the members of the community to show them they're working hard to make tough decisions," he said.

63 of 68

After the speech, Pradel tried something new - a question-and-answer session with city and chamber leaders. Only one audience member, Don Wehrli, took advantage, calling for more green space in Central Park.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/print/?id=353768

Obama and Chamber patch it up - POLITICO.com Print View2/5/2010 12:50:55 PM

Obama and Chamber patch it up By: Jeanne Cummings February 2, 2010 04:11 PM EST

After publicly sparring in the fall, the White House and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are trying to make up. In an extraordinary exchange of letters written after last week’s State of the Union address, Chamber President Tom Donohue and President Barack Obama agreed to disagree on some issues and work together where they can. In a letter to Obama initiating the exchange, Donohue agreed to support the administration’s goals of reforming education, doubling exports, expanding nuclear power and domestic drilling, improving worker training and funding infrastructure projects. “While we don’t agree with every idea in your speech, we support the priorities I mentioned and will work vigorously to achieve them,” Donohue wrote in the Jan. 28 letter. On Monday, Obama responded with a more expansive “Dear Tom” letter that thanked Donohue for his “kind comments” about the speech and welcomed the Chamber’s help moving his agenda through Congress. The president recalled their shoulder-to-shoulder effort a year ago to pass the stimulus bill. Noting last week’s report that the economy grew nearly 6 percent in the fourth quarter, Obama wrote: “It was the largest yearly turnaround in economic growth in three decades and wouldn’t have happened without the legislation you and the Chamber supported.” Like Donahue, Obama acknowledged that the White House and the Chamber will disagree on some issues or on “ how to achieve the goals we all share,” but the president appealed to the Chamber to “work together wherever possible to build an economy in which businesses and jobs are growing.” The correspondence caps a quieter, gradual thawing of relations between the administration and the business group that had grown frosty during the 2009 health care and energy debates. The hostilities grew so intense that the Chamber accused the White House of trying to drive away its members and undermine its the influence. Tensions eased after White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel addressed Chamber members in November, and the two camps had continued to communicate with each other. But, in December, the chill attracted new attention when the Chamber was not invited to attend a White House jobs summit. Obama’s decision to reach out to Donohue reflects the changing politics and policy priorities in Washington.

64 of 68 Senate Democrats, having lost their filibuster-proof majority, must develop legislation that http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=90727DE7-18FE-70B2-A849FA731922D541

Obama and Chamber patch it up - POLITICO.com Print View 2/5/2010 12:50:55 PM is acceptable not just to some Republicans but also to their own conservatives and moderates, who are often closer to the business community than their liberal counterparts. Those Democrats also could benefit disproportionately during the election season from winning the backing of the Chamber — and they can be harmed more by its opposition. Beyond working with their own conservative Democrats, the White House must guard against a revolt among the party’s liberal wing, such as the one that threatened the reappointment of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. In the final days leading to the Bernanke vote, both the Chamber and the White House pressed senators to back Bernanke. The Chamber’s top lobbyist, Bruce Josten, sent a letter to all members of the Senate urging a second term for the Fed chairman. With the economy showing signs of turning a corner, “the Chamber is convinced that as one of the architects of the plan that has brought us to this point, Chairman Bernanke is the right person to head the Federal Reserve System during this vitally important second phase,” Josten wrote. Bernanke was reappointed on a vote of 70-30, with 18 Republicans, one independent, and 11 Democrats voting against him. Renewed cooperation between the Chamber and the White House also coincides with Obama’s refocus on the economy and jobs, with the potential for mutual gains. The White House on Tuesday unveiled more details about its plan to provide $30 billion in new loans to small businesses. The president also has been trumpeting the number of new jobs created by last year’s stimulus as a reason for Congress to invest more in infrastructure projects. Republicans on Capitol Hill have reacted coolly — or with open hostility — to those ideas, which could heighten the need for the White House to work in concert with business groups to get them passed. © 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

65 of 68

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=90727DE7-18FE-70B2-A849FA731922D541

66 of 68

67 of 68

68 of 68