CHICAGO - Governor Bruce Rauner took action today on the following bills:
Bill No.: HB 169
An Act Concerning Arrest Records
Action: Signed
Effective Date: January 1, 2016
Bill No.: HB 208
An Act Concerning Pie
Action: Signed
Effective Date: January 1, 2016
Bill No.: HB 218
An Act Concerning Criminal Law
Action: Amendatory Veto
Note: Veto message below.
Bill No.: HB 219
An Act Concerning Local Government
Action: Amendatory Veto
Note: Veto message below.
Bill No.: HB 494
An Act Concerning Education
Action: Amendatory Veto
Note: Veto message below.
Bill No.: HB 1326
An Act Concerning Safety
Action: Signed
Effective Date: January 1, 2016
Bill No.: HB 1345
An Act Concerning Transportation
Action: Vetoed
Note: Veto message below.
Bill No.: HB 1496
An Act Concerning Regulation
Action: Signed
Effective Date: January 1, 2016
Bill No.: HB 3215
An Act Concerning Regulation
Action: Vetoed
Note: Veto message below.
Bill No.: HB 3299
An Act Concerning Health
Action: Amendatory Veto
Note: Veto message below.
Bill No.: HB 3757
An Act Concerning Public Employee Benefits
Action: Vetoed
Note: Veto message below.
Bill No.: HB 3887
An Act Concerning State Government
Action: Signed
Effective Date: January 1, 2016
Bill No.: SB 650
An Act Concerning Local Government
Action: Amendatory Veto
Note: Veto message below.
Bill No.: SB 781
An Act Concerning Local Government
Action: Amendatory Veto
Note: Veto message below.
Bill No.: SB 792
An Act Concerning Revenue
Action: Signed
Effective Date: January 1, 2016
Bill No.: SB 1129
An Act Concerning Criminal Law
Action: Signed
Effective Date: January 1, 2016
Bill No.: SB 1781
An Act Concerning Insurance
Action: Signed
Effective Date: Immediate
Bill No.: SB 1805
An Act Concerning Insurance
Action: Signed
Effective Date: July 1, 2015
Veto Message for HB 218
To the Honorable Members of
The Illinois House of Representatives,
99th General Assembly:
Today I return House Bill 218 with specific recommendations for change.
Together we have taken significant steps to reforming our criminal justice system. In February, I established the Illinois State Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform to recommend amendments to State law to reduce the State's current prison population by 25% by 2025. The General Assembly passed legislation this session to shorten the length of juvenile aftercare (parole), eliminate mandatory life sentences for juveniles, protect victims of prostitution and trafficking, and shorten the waiting time for expungements, among other legislation. Our work is not done, but I thank the members of the General Assembly for being partners in this effort.
Although the possession of non-medical cannabis is and will remain illegal under Illinois law, criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of cannabis are too severe. Under current law, possession of up to 2.5 grams is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by incarceration of up to 30 days; possession of up to 10 grams is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by incarceration of up to 180 days; and possession of up to 30 grams is a Class A misdemeanor or Class 4 felony, depending on prior convictions, punishable by incarceration of up to one year. Even if jail time is avoided, a person convicted of possession is saddled with a criminal record that impedes future employment opportunities and increases recidivism.
The criminal prosecution of cannabis possession is also a drain on public resources. By classifying possession as a misdemeanor or felony, rather than as a civil law violation, our police, prosecutors, public defenders, and corrections officers spend significant time and tax-dollars to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate offenders. In 2014 alone, police made 15,427 arrests for possession of up to 2.5 grams of cannabis; 11,920 arrests for possession of up to 10 grams of cannabis; and 5,496 arrests for possession of up to 30 grams of cannabis. The time and expense to arrest, prosecute, and in some cases incarcerate almost 33,000 persons per year for minor possession is a diversion of critical public resources that are needed elsewhere.
House Bill 218 would reclassify the possession of small quantities of cannabis as a civil law violation, rather than a misdemeanor. Possession would still be illegal and subject to a fine, but not a criminal offense. Consequently, the taxpayers would be spared the time and expense of arresting, prosecuting, and potentially incarcerating offenders, and the offender would avoid a criminal record. Possession of larger quantities of cannabis would continue to be a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the quantity.
I support the fundamental purposes of this bill. I thank the sponsors for their diligent and thoughtful work and the many Illinoisans and organizations who contributed to this legislation, while acknowledging that many still have questions and concerns about its impact.
Recognizing that this legislation is a significant change in how our State handles illegal drug possession, any change must be made carefully and incrementally. I have particular concern about three metrics, each of which is addressed below, so am returning this bill with specific recommendations for change.
Delineation Among Violations
Current law delineates violations for possession of small amounts of cannabis as follows: up to 2.5 grams (Class C misdemeanor); up to 10 grams (Class B misdemeanor); and up to 30 grams (Class A misdemeanor or Class 4 felony).
House Bill 218 creates a new delineation at 15 grams. The bill would reclassify the first two classes of violation (possession of up to 10 grams) as a civil law violation, which I support for the reasons explained above. But the bill goes farther, by also classifying possession of up to 15 grams as a civil violation, while providing that possession of 15 to 30 grams would be a Class B misdemeanor. In other words, the bill would create a delineation at 15 grams, which does not exist under current law.
I recommend that the delineation remain at 10 grams, rather than be moved to 15 grams. Many local ordinances, from Cook County to Carbondale, already use 10 grams as the delineation between civil law violation and misdemeanor, having taken their cue from State law. In addition, the State reports arrest and incarceration data based on current statutory delineations, meaning that future comparisons to study the effect of House Bill 218 if it becomes law will be easier without changing the delineation.
Leaving the delineation at 10 grams will still accomplish the bill's fundamental purposes. As noted above, 83% of the arrests in 2014 for possession of up to 30 grams were for possession of less than 10 grams. Therefore, providing a civil law violation for possession of up to 10 grams will still dramatically reduce the number of arrests.
Penalty for Civil Law Violation
Under current law, a person convicted of possession of up to 10 grams of cannabis is subject to a fine of up $1,500, in addition to potential incarceration. House Bill 218 would reduce the fine to a minimum of $55 and a maximum of $125.
Although reducing the fine from $1,500 is reasonable, $55 to $125 is too low. I recommend that the fine be a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $200. That range would be more in line with fines under local ordinances, including Cook County ($200), Chicago ($250 to $500), Carbondale ($250 to $750), Evanston ($50 to $500), and Urbana ($300). That range would also be in line with California and New York, both of which impose minimum fines of $100.
In addition, House Bill 218 directs that $55 of the fine be distributed to certain sources, including the circuit clerk, law enforcement agency, the county for drug addiction services, the State's Attorney Appellate Prosecutor, and the State's Attorney. The remaining proceeds are then to be turned over to the law enforcement agency that issued the ticket; but because the minimum fine is $55, there may be no remainder to distribute. Imposing a minimum fine of $100 would ensure additional proceeds are available to local law enforcement agencies to ensure their costs are adequately covered.
Imposing a fine of $100 to $200 will still accomplish the bill's fundamental purposes. That range of fine is still a significant reduction from the current $1,500 fine.
Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis
House Bill 218 also establishes a standard for driving under the influence of cannabis. Under current law, a driver is presumed to be under the influence of cannabis if there is any trace of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) detected in his or her blood, even if the usage occurred days or weeks earlier and the driver is no longer impaired. House Bill 218 would raise this limit from zero to 15 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood (ng/mL). A driver would also continue to be guilty of driving under the influence if he or she exhibited other signs of impairment, regardless of the amount of THC detected.
Although I appreciate the need to update the limit above zero, the limit proposed in House Bill 218 is too high. The sponsors' intent was to establish a limit that would not jeopardize the safety of the driver or the public, would realistically reflect whether a driver was impaired, and would not exceed the equivalent limit for alcohol impairment. In light of this intent and the limitations on scientific research available to us, I believe that 5 ng/mL is the appropriate limit at this time.
As the sponsors of House Bill 218 acknowledged during the course of negotiation and debate, the science is limited and evolving. Both proponents and opponents have cited the work of European researchers on the causes and effects of cannabis-impaired driving. Dr. Jan Ramaekers opined that 5 ng/mL would cause approximately the same degree of impairment as our 0.08% standard for blood alcohol concentration. For that reason, both Colorado and Washington, where recreational cannabis was legalized, set the limit at 5 ng/mL, while Nevada set the limit at 2 ng/mL.
We need more research and more time to understand the effects of cannabis on driving. Equating impairment caused by cannabis to impairment caused by alcohol is neither so simple nor, given that cannabis remains illegal and the effects of cannabis are different than the effects of alcohol, appropriate. Until then, I cannot support a 15 ng/mL limit, which would be three times the limit in any other state.
Setting the limit at 5 ng/mL of whole blood will still accomplish the bill's fundamental purposes. That limit is a significant increase over the current zero-tolerance policy.
Incorporation of House Bill 3215
The General Assembly also passed House Bill 3215, which makes certain technical and other changes to House Bill 218 "[i]f and only if House Bill 218 of the 99th General Assembly becomes law in the form in which it passed the House on April 23, 2015".
The passage of House Bill 3215 was an integral part of the passage of House Bill 218. Unfortunately, because of the references in House Bill 3215 to "the form in which [House Bill 218] passed the House on April 23, 2015, House Bill 3215 will not take effect if the changes recommended here are accepted. Therefore, to ensure that the entire legislation - including both House Bill 3215 and House Bill 218 - becomes law, I also recommend that the changes included in House Bill 3215 be incorporated into House Bill 218.
Conclusion
I again thank the sponsors for their diligent and thoughtful work on House Bill 218. The changes recommended here still work towards the fundamental purposes of the bill: that possession of small amounts of cannabis be a civil law violation rather than a misdemeanor; that the fine for possession of small amounts of cannabis be reduced significantly; and that the limit for driving under the influence of cannabis be increased from zero.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 9(e) of Article IV of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, I hereby return House Bill 218, entitled "AN ACT concerning transportation", with the following specific recommendations for change:
On page 111, line 11, by replacing "15" with "5"; and
On page 111, line 13, by replacing "25" with "10"; and
On page 114, line 14, by replacing "15" with "5"; and
On page 114, line 14, by replacing "25" with "10"; and
On page 114, line 19, by replacing "15" with "5"; and
On page 114, line 20, by replacing "25" with "10"; and
On page 181, line 14, by replacing "15" with "10"; and
On page 181, line 16, by replacing "$55" with "$100"; and
On page 181, line 17, by replacing "$125" with "$200"; and
On page 182, line 24, by replacing "15" with "10"; and
On page 185, line 20, by replacing "$55" with "$100"; and
On page 185, line 20, by replacing "$125" with "$200"; and
For the purpose of incorporating the changes included in House Bill 3215:
On page 6, by replacing line 22 with "the circuit court shall expunge, upon order of the court, or in the absence of a court order on or before"; and
On page 138, by replacing lines 1 through 5 with "(5.3) (blank);"; and
On page 138, by replacing lines 6 through 10 with "(5.5) (blank); or"; and
On page 138, by replacing line 14 with "consumption of cannabis listed in the Cannabis Control Act,"; and
On page 181, by replacing lines 18 through 21 with "clerk of the circuit court. Within 30 days after the deposit of the fine, the clerk shall distribute the"; and
On page 185, by replacing lines 21 through 24 with "be payable to the clerk of the circuit court. Within 30 days after the deposit of the fine, the clerk shall distribute the".
With these changes, House Bill 218 will have my approval. I respectfully request your concurrence.
Sincerely,
Bruce Rauner
GOVERNOR
Veto Message for HB 219
To the Honorable Members of
The Illinois House of Representatives,
99th General Assembly:
Today I return House Bill 219 with a specific recommendation for change.
Current law permits a territory within a fire protection district to be disconnected from the district and transferred to a contiguous district provided that certain criteria are met. The proposed transfer is subject to approval by voters of the territory. If this bill were enacted, the proposed transfer would be subject to approval by voters of the entire district from which the territory is to be disconnected.
Illinois is suffering from too many units of local government. For government to be more efficient and responsive, we need to enable, not hinder, consolidation of local governments. This bill simply replaces one hurdle to consolidation with another hurdle to consolidation.
Real reform requires bolder action. In 2013, the General Assembly passed legislation to permit DuPage County to dissolve and consolidate county-appointed districts, including so-called "paper" fire protection districts that tax residents but do not employ firefighters. The Local Government Consolidation Commission recommended that the authority granted to DuPage County be extended to all counties if, as has been the case, the DuPage County effort proves successful. The change recommended below would incorporate the legislative revisions recommended by the Commission in its report.
Consolidation of local government is a meaningful step to reducing property taxes in Illinois. The proliferation of taxing jurisdictions is a direct cause of our high property tax rates. By extending the authority granted to DuPage County to all counties, counties will be able to reduce the number of taxing jurisdictions, streamline services, and control costs.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 9(e) of Article IV of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, I hereby return House Bill 219 entitled "AN ACT concerning local government", with the following specific recommendation for change:
On page 6, immediately after line 25, by inserting:
"Section 10. The Counties Code is amended by changing Section 5-44010 as follows:
(55 ILCS 5/5-44010)
Sec. 5-44010. Applicability. The powers and authorities provided by this Division 5-44 apply all counties in the state of Illinois only to counties with a population of more than 900,000 and less than 3,000,000 that are contiguous to a county with a population of more than 3,000,000 and units of local government within such counties.
(Source: P.A. 98-126, eff. 8-2-13)".
With this change, House Bill 219 will have my approval. I respectfully request your concurrence.
Sincerely,
Bruce Rauner
GOVERNOR
Veto Message HB 494
To the Honorable Members of
The Illinois House of Representatives
99th General Assembly:
Today I return House Bill 494 with specific recommendations for change.
Current law permanently bars a person who has been convicted of a Class X felony, sex offense, or drug offense from holding an educator license. This bill would permit a person who has been convicted of a drug offense to obtain an educator license beginning seven years after the person has completed his or her criminal sentence for the offense, subject to other licensing requirements.
I thank the sponsors for undertaking the difficult task of balancing important, competing public interests. Although we must establish high standards for educators to protect our children, we should not permanently preclude persons convicted of relatively minor, non-violent offenses from gainful employment after enough time has passed following the successful completion of the criminal sentence.
I am returning House Bill 494 to correct and clarify the legislation. I thank the sponsors and other supporters of this bill for working with the State Board of Education and my administration to prepare and review these changes.
First, the bill adds a new subsection (a-5) to Section 21B-80 of the School Code to provide that a drug offense conviction is an "automatic bar" only until seven years following the end of the criminal sentence, as opposed to permanently. While I support that change for the reasons explained above, the new subsection does not specify how that automatic bar would be given effect. I recommend that the change be incorporated into existing subsections (b) and (c), which would make clear that it is the duty of the State Superintendent of Education to give effect to the license suspension.
Second, the bill adds two unnecessary references in Section 21B-80 of the School Code to "employment" that could confuse the distinction between licensure and employment. Section 21B-80 directs the State Superintendent of Education to suspend or revoke the educator license of a person convicted of a Class X felony, sex offense, or drug offense. Employment, by contrast, is undertaken by school districts, not the State Board of Education or the State Superintendent. I recommend that references in Section 21B-80 to "employment" be removed to avoid implying otherwise.
Third, the changes to Section 21B-80 are in conflict with the provisions of Section 21B-15 of the School Code. That section provides that "no one may be licensed to teach or supervise in the public schools of this State who has been convicted of an offense set forth in Section 21B-80 of this Code." The changes made in Section 21B-80 with respect to drug offenses must be reflected in Section 21B-15.
Finally, the bill makes unclear statements in Sections 2-3.25o, 10-21.9, and 34-18.5 of the School Code that are unnecessary and potentially confusing. Those sections require criminal background checks for school employees. The proposed changes would provide that a conviction of a felony other than a Class X felony, sex offense, or drug offense may not be an automatic bar to employment after seven years, and that a conviction for such a felony may be reviewable within the first seven years. Current law, however, does not impose an automatic bar to employment of persons convicted of such non-enumerated felonies. Additional clarity would be needed to properly guide school districts on the relevance of criminal offenses to employment decisions outside of Section 21B-80. The proposed provisions are too unclear to be workable and fall outside of the primary purpose of this bill: to reduce the permanent bar on licensing persons convicted of a drug offense.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 9(e) of Article IV of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, I hereby return House Bill 494 entitled "AN ACT concerning education", with the following specific recommendations for change:
On page 1, by replacing line 5 with "2-3.25o, 10-21.9, 21B-15, 21B-80, and 34-18.5 as follows:"; and
On page 3, by deleting lines 8-14; and
On page 7, by replacing lines 19 through 25 with "punishable as a felony under the laws of this State."; and
On page 8, by replacing line 1 with "Authorization"; and
On page 15, immediately after line 17, by inserting the following:
"(105 ILCS 5/21B-15)
Sec. 21B-15. Qualifications of educators.
(a) No one may be licensed to teach or supervise or be otherwise employed in the public schools of this State who is not of good character and at least 20 years of age.
In determining good character under this Section, the State Superintendent of Education shall take into consideration the disciplinary actions of other states or national entities against certificates or licenses issued by those states and held by individuals from those states. In addition, any felony conviction of the applicant may be taken into consideration; however, no one may be licensed to teach or supervise in the public schools of this State who has been convicted of (i) an offense set forth in subsection (b) of Section 21B-80 of this Code until 7 years following the end of the sentence for the criminal offense or (ii) an offense set forth in subsection (c) of Section 21B-80. Unless the conviction is for an offense set forth in Section 21B-80 of this Code, an applicant must be permitted to submit character references or other written material before such a conviction or other information regarding the applicant's character may be used by the State Superintendent of Education as a basis for denying the application.
(b) No person otherwise qualified shall be denied the right to be licensed or to receive training for the purpose of becoming an educator because of a physical disability, including, but not limited to, visual and hearing disabilities; nor shall any school district refuse to employ a teacher on such grounds, provided that the person is able to carry out the duties of the position for which he or she applies.
(c) No person may be granted or continue to hold an educator license who has knowingly altered or misrepresented his or her qualifications, in this State or any other state, in order to acquire or renew the license. Any other license issued under this Article held by the person may be suspended or revoked by the State Educator Preparation and Licensure Board, depending upon the severity of the alteration or misrepresentation.
(d) No one may teach or supervise in the public schools nor receive for teaching or supervising any part of any public school fund who does not hold an educator license granted by the State Superintendent of Education as provided in this Article. However, the provisions of this Article do not apply to a member of the armed forces who is employed as a teacher of subjects in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps of any school, nor to an individual teaching a dual credit course as provided for in the Dual Credit Quality Act.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, the school board of a school district may grant to a teacher of the district a leave of absence with full pay for a period of not more than one year to permit the teacher to teach in a foreign state under the provisions of the Exchange Teacher Program established under Public Law 584, 79th Congress, and Public Law 402, 80th Congress, as amended. The school board granting the leave of absence may employ, with or without pay, a national of the foreign state wherein the teacher on the leave of absence is to teach if the national is qualified to teach in that foreign state and if that national is to teach in a grade level similar to the one that was taught in the foreign state. The State Board of Education, in consultation with the State Educator Preparation and Licensure Board, may adopt rules as may be necessary to implement this subsection (e).
(Source: P.A. 97-607, eff. 8-26-11.)"; and
On page 15, by replacing line 20 with "disqualification for licensure or revocation of a"; and
On page 17, by replacing lines 25 through 26 on page 17 with ""Sentence" includes any period of supervision or probation that was imposed either alone or in combination with a period of incarceration."; and
On page 18, by deleting lines 1-6; and
On page 18, by replacing lines 7-18 with the following:
"(b) Whenever the holder of any license issued pursuant to this Article or applicant for a license to be issued pursuant to this Article has been convicted of any sex offense or drug narcotics offense, other than an offense enumerated in subsection (c) of this Section, the State Superintendent of Education shall forthwith suspend the license or deny the application, whichever is applicable, until 7 years following the end of the sentence for the criminal offense. If the conviction is reversed and the holder is acquitted of the offense in a new trial or the charges against him or her are dismissed, the State Superintendent of Education shall forthwith terminate the suspension of the license. When the conviction becomes final, the State Superintendent of Education shall forthwith revoke the license."; and
On page 18, by replacing line 22 with the following, "conspiring to commit, soliciting, or committing any sex offense, first degree"; and
On page 20, by replacing lines 2 through 8 with the following: "under the laws of this State."; and
On page 20, by replacing line 9 with the following, "Authorization for the check".
With these changes, House Bill 494 will have my approval. I respectfully request your concurrence.
Sincerely,
Bruce Rauner
GOVERNOR
Veto Message HB 1345
To the Honorable Members of
The Illinois House of Representatives,
99th General Assembly:
Today I veto House Bill 1345 from the 99th General Assembly, which imposes new and unnecessary licensing requirements on business and imposes new burdens on ex-offender reentry into the job market.
First, this bill would require remittance agents - persons who assist businesses in obtaining Illinois vehicle registrations - to take "prelicensing education training courses" on top of existing licensing requirements. We should not impose new regulations on business in this difficult economic climate without compelling and substantiated justification. We should instead pursue voluntary training opportunities.
Second, this bill would prohibit a person from obtaining a vehicle dealer license or from serving as an officer, director, or significant owner of a vehicle dealer if he or she has been convicted of a "forcible felony," which is defined to include specific serious crimes as well as "any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."
We must be careful whenever we disqualify ex-offenders from employment. While persons convicted of serious crimes may not be suitable for certain positions, disqualification is inconsistent with our goal of facilitating successful reentry of ex-offenders into society. In this case, the definition of forcible felony is potentially too broad: while it includes serious offenses like murder and rape, it also includes "any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual." Courts have examined and attempted to narrow the definition, but it remains open-ended and subject to frequent litigation, particularly over more common offenses like assault and battery.
In addition, courts have instructed us that a disqualifying offense must have a clear nexus to the position. The connection between forcible felony and vehicle dealership licensure is not apparent.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 9(b) of Article IV of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, I hereby return House Bill 1345, entitled "AN ACT concerning transportation", with the foregoing objections, vetoed in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Bruce Rauner
GOVERNOR
Veto Message HB 3215
To the Honorable Members of
The Illinois House of Representatives
99th General Assembly:
Today I veto House Bill 3215 from the 99th General Assembly for technical reasons. The bill makes changes to House Bill 218, which concerns penalties for cannabis, "[i]f and only if House Bill 218 . . . becomes law in the form in which it passed the House on April 23, 2015." I thank the sponsors of House Bills 218 and 3215 for their diligent work on these bills.
I returned House Bill 218 with specific recommendations for change. Included among those changes are the changes incorporated by House Bill 3215. If the General Assembly concurs in those changes, House Bill 3215 would be moot and, by its own terms, inoperative.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 9(b) of Article IV of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, I hereby return House Bill 3215, "AN ACT concerning regulation", with the foregoing objections, vetoed in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Bruce Rauner
GOVERNOR
Veto Message for HB 3299
To the Honorable Members of
The Illinois House of Representatives,
99th General Assembly:
Today I return House Bill 3299 with a specific recommendation for change.
The four-year Medical Cannabis Pilot Program expires January 1, 2018. House Bill 3299 would extend the expiration of the pilot program until the date which is four years after the first dispensary organization license is issued by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation - an extension of at least nineteen months.
When the pilot program was first authorized, the General Assembly provided for a four-year period. That period included time both for setting up the program and issuing licenses and for operations. In other words, the pilot program never provided a full four years for operations.
The sponsors note, however, that the start of operations has been delayed because then-Governor Quinn declined to make licensing decisions during the final months of his term. The intent of House Bill 3299 is to remedy that delay and provide program participants with the time for operations intended when the program was first authorized.
For that reason, an extension of 120 days is appropriate. That extension would account for the delay caused in the final months of the prior administration. A further extension of at least nineteen months total, however, is inconsistent with the pilot program's initial authorizing statute. Moreover, given that no sale has yet occurred and we have not had an opportunity to evaluate the successes and failures of the pilot program, a further extension would be premature.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 9(e) of Article IV of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, I hereby return House Bill 3299, entitled "AN ACT concerning health", with the following specific recommendation for change:
On page 3, by replacing lines 20 through 22 with following:
"Sec. 220. Repeal of Act. This Act is repealed on April 30, 2018 4 years after the effective date of this Act."
With this change, House Bill 3299 will have my approval. I respectfully request your concurrence.
Sincerely,
Bruce Rauner
GOVERNOR
Veto Message HB 3757
To the Honorable Members of
The Illinois House of Representatives,
99th General Assembly:
Today I veto House Bill 3757 from the 99th General Assembly, which would amend the Illinois Pension Code and could impose higher costs and more mandates on municipalities and other local governments that participate in the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund.
House Bill 3757 would make local government employers responsible for determining whether to suspend annuitants' Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund benefits if they return to work. As the penalty for failing to conduct this determination and notify the Fund's Board of Trustees, local governments may become liable for the entire amount of retirement annuity payments that should have been suspended.
At a time when local governments in Illinois are struggling to make ends meet, we should not be saddling them with additional burdens. To be sure, the issue of overpaying retirement benefits is serious and should be addressed. But it must be addressed by the Fund and the participating local governments working together. Only then can we fashion a proper solution that prevents overpayment without imposing undue burdens on local governments.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 9(b) of Article IV of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, I hereby return House Bill 3757 entitled "AN ACT concerning public employee benefits", with the foregoing objections, vetoed in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Bruce Rauner
GOVERNOR
Veto Message SB 650
To the Honorable Members of
The Illinois Senate,
99th General Assembly:
Today I return Senate Bill 650 with specific recommendations for change.
Current law permits a territory within a fire protection district to be disconnected from the district and transferred to a contiguous district provided that certain criteria are met, including that the transfer will not cause a serious injury to the district from which the territory is being disconnected. Illinois courts have used fact-specific inquiries to determine what constitutes "serious injury," including with reference to loss of property tax revenues, but without setting a single numerical threshold.
Among other changes, this bill would provide that a loss of 10% or more of property tax revenue is a "serious injury," taking away some of the discretion previously used in the fact-specific inquiry.
Illinois is suffering from too many units of local government. For government to be more efficient and responsive, we need to enable, not hinder, consolidation of local governments. Unfortunately this bill's attempt to define "serious injury" could impede efforts towards consolidation.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 9(e) of Article IV of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, I hereby return Senate Bill 650, entitled "AN ACT concerning local government", with the following specific recommendations for change:
On page 2, by deleting lines 6 through 24; and
By deleting pages 3 through 7; and
On page 8, by deleting lines 1 through 4.
With these changes, Senate Bill 650 will have my approval. I respectfully request your concurrence.
Sincerely,
Bruce Rauner
GOVERNOR
Veto Message SB 781
To the Honorable Members of
The Illinois Senate,
99th General Assembly:
Today I return Senate Bill 781 with a specific recommendation for change.
This bill would provide that a fire protection district is not required to assume responsibility for fire protection services for an adjacent municipality that elects to discontinue its municipal fire department without consent by the fire protection district.
Illinois is suffering from too many units of local government. For government to be more efficient and responsive, we need to enable, not hinder, consolidation of local governments. This bill adds one more hurdle to the consolidation of services and governments.
Real reform requires bolder action. In 2013, the General Assembly passed legislation to permit DuPage County to dissolve and consolidate county-appointed districts, including so-called "paper" fire protection districts that tax residents but do not employ firefighters. The Local Government Consolidation Commission recommended that the authority granted to DuPage County be extended to all counties if, as has been the case, the DuPage County effort proves successful. The change recommended below would incorporate the legislative revisions recommended by the Commission in its report.
Consolidation of local government is a meaningful step to reducing property taxes in Illinois. The proliferation of taxing jurisdictions is a direct cause of our high property tax rates. By extending the authority granted to DuPage County to all counties, counties will be able to reduce the number of taxing jurisdictions, streamline services, and control costs.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 9(e) of Article IV of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, I hereby return Senate Bill 781 entitled "AN ACT concerning local government", with the following specific recommendation for change:
On page 3, immediately after line 10, by inserting:
"Section 10. The Counties Code is amended by changing Section 5-44010 as follows:
(55 ILCS 5/5-44010)
Sec. 5-44010. Applicability. The powers and authorities provided by this Division 5-44 apply all counties in the state of Illinois only to counties with a population of more than 900,000 and less than 3,000,000 that are contiguous to a county with a population of more than 3,000,000 and units of local government within such counties.
(Source: P.A. 98-126, eff. 8-2-13)".
With this change, Senate Bill 781 will have my approval. I respectfully request your concurrence.
Sincerely,
Bruce Rauner
GOVERNOR
###
