Yesterday, the State Senate voted to confirm three new members of the Board of Trustees, and because Senate President Emil Jones refused to allow Senators to question the nominees, it was largely a party-line vote:
The Illinois Senate approved new six-year terms for three University of Illinois Board of Trustees members Tuesday despite complaints that senators were denied a chance to quiz them about the controversial retirement of Chief Illiniwek.
Also Tuesday, the House voted almost unanimously to have U of I board members elected publicly, rather than appointed by the governor...
Montgomery and Eppley, an attorney from Palatine, were approved on a largely party-line vote of 34-19, with two voting "present." Vickrey, a media group vice president from Peru, was approved by a 39-13 vote, with three voting "present."
Many Republicans said they voted "no" to protest Sen. Rickey Hendon's decision to prevent the trustees from testifying before a Senate committee hearing on Friday.
The four GOP members of the Senate Executive Appointments committee requested that Eppley, Montgomery and Vickrey appear at Friday's hearing. But Hendon, a Chicago Democrat who chairs the committee, said he rejected the request because the senators wanted only to grill the trustees about the Chief.
Sadly, the State Senator who represents the University of Illinois - Mike Frerichs - voted "present." When faced with a choice between standing for public access to the Trustees of the University or standing with Emil Jones, Frerichs couldn't choose. He abdicated, and demonstrated no leadership whatsoever.
There were legitimate reasons to vote for the nominees, if Frerichs felt they were the best choices.
There were legitimate reasons to vote against the nominees, if Frerichs was turned off by Jones' refusal to allow testimoney and questions.
But there is absolutely no reason for the Senator representing the University and its many employees and students to abstain. It's just a complete abdication of his leadership responsibilities, and I'm disgusted.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2007/04/25/house_votes_to_switch_to_elected
The house voted to have the Trustees elected, as opposed to appointed. Frerichs said he would support the measure in the Senate.
However, I think it's just for show esp. after his "present" vote. He knows it will go nowhere with Emil at the helm. Yet, it will appear that he is doing something.
I agree with your assessment of the situation regarding the Trustee vote.
Why is anyone surprised that Frerichs shows voters the same characteristics now that he is a state Senator that he has always had?
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/opinions/editorials/2007/04/25/jones_tactics_flatten_democratic_process
An excellent op-ed from today's paper. I think they hit that right on the head.
Has anyone else noticed lately that when Gordy posts a negative hit on Frerichs not many people, if any at all, respond in the comments? Does that mean that people even on this conservative leaning blog disagree with IP's constant critism of Sen. Frerichs or does it mean that people want to give this new and young Senator some time, certainly more than his first four months in office, to get his bearings? Just an observation.....mabye when its a non-issue like this you should just leave sleeping dogs lie.
the million dollar man said he was going to be an advocate fot the UI and he is proving to be a failure at this point. Appointing trustees is one of the most important jobs the senate has and Frerichs votes present. That sure is leadership.
Actually I was down in Springfield today for Higher Ed Lobby Day and this morning we heard Sen. Frerichs on NPR saying exacly why he voted the way he did. He said he was mad at how the Senators who requested for Epply and others to appear before the committee so he wanted to register his fustration and disgust with the process. However he did say, and did so again in the News Gazette, that he had met with two of the three and said that he was impressed with their qualifications and future goals for the University so he did want to support them. Voting present allowed him to accomplish both of those goals. Made sense to me.
"Has anyone else noticed lately that when Gordy posts a negative hit on Frerichs not many people, if any at all, respond in the comments? Does that mean that people even on this conservative leaning blog disagree with IP's constant critism of Sen. Frerichs or does it mean that people want to give this new and young Senator some time, certainly more than his first four months in office, to get his bearings?"
I think most people have even lower expectations for him than I did.
I have nothing personal against Mike Frerichs. I think he's a good person, but I disagree with some of his policy positions, and most vehemently with his support of Emil Jones. But I want him to do well in Springfield. This District needs a "tough, independent" voice at the table, and we're just not getting it - rather, we're going to have a State Senator who, when he stands for re-election in four years, is going to point to a slew of legislation that he sponsored but that Emil Jones never allowed out of the Senate. So I keep asking the question - is voting for Emil Jones as Senate President in the best interests of Frerichs' District? It certainly hasn't been, so far. Anybody disagree?
"...he was mad at how the Senators who requested for Epply and others to appear before the committee so he wanted to register his fustration and disgust with the process."
Actions like this is not how a 'freshman' Senator lays the ground work to become a "tough, independent" voice for our district.
He learned how not to rock the boat while on varsity crew.
I have found myself in support of Charles Schumer and Barack Obama, but Mike Frerichs is little more than a hack.
Frerichs manages to be such a hack and such a cipher, I think Gordy shows remarkable restraint.
He's new, so I'll give him some time, but right now things don't look very promising. Unless the Democrats dump Emil Jones and his shameless watering at the public trough, East Central Illinois isn't going to get much support or anything else out of government. Maybe I'm cynical, but how is Frerichs going to stand up to Jones and his shenanigans when he owes Jones so much in terms of election support? And before I get flamed about the support from the Republicans that Judy Myers took, at least they have some interests similar to those of this area, unlilke Jones and his cronies.
"Frerichs manages to be such a hack and such a cipher, I think Gordy shows remarkable restraint."
Thanks - I really do want him to be "tough and independent," because that's what we need over there.
And, frankly, that's what he promised us he would do.
You know, listening to the people on this site that constantly call for Frerichs to advocate for President Jones' resignation, one would believe they not only do not understand a damn thing about politics but also that they have no idea how the process works in Springfield. Individual Senators are exactly that, individuals, one out of 59 (well in reality one out of 37 since Republican members are obsolete due to the veto-proof majority Democrats hold). Members, especially freshman, need to sit back and advocate for their districts and make sure they are pushing their agenda while learning the ways and the personalities that have been there long before them. Sen. Frerichs has absolutely has nothing to gain by calling for Jones’ resignation or even criticizing him more than he has so far. In fact Sen. Frerichs, as a freshman member of the Senate, really has much to lose if he were a constant critic of President Jones and the leadership. If one takes the time to look at Frerichs' sponsored legislation you would see plenty of legislation that directly benefits East Central Illinois and the 52nd District. He has four years before he has to face the people in an election, in the mean time he can continue to build a record of which he can be proud of and the people of the 52nd can judge him on. I'd say it would be best to let that happen and then after May, or lets be serious here probably June/July, sit back and try your best to objectively look at the legislation he sponsored, the bills he voted for, and the bills he voted against.
"I'd say it would be best to let that happen and then after May, or lets be serious here probably June/July, sit back and try your best to objectively look at the legislation he sponsored, the bills he voted for, and the bills he voted against."
Yes, let's not judge Sen. Frerichs on whether he lives up to his campaign promise of being "tough and independent."
Let's let President Jones kill every important piece of legislation Frerichs sponsors without anyone asking the question about why Frerichs thinks Jones' leadership is good for the 52nd District.
At this point, calling for Jones' resignation (or even refusing to vote for him as President) would be every bit as quixotic as many here think Frerichs' sponsorship of ill-fated bills are. If all we are interested in are grand but meaningless gestures, then yes, by all means, Frerichs should call for Jones' head from dusk 'til dawn. Of course, if he does that, then this district will be completely screwed for the next four years.
One does not commit regicide by themselves; it takes allies and planning. That would take a little bit of time, especially for a freshman legislator. Because the most important thing to remember is that, when you're going after the king, you have to make sure that you get him on the first stroke. Just like the lion, nothing is more dangerous than a wounded monarch.
"At this point, calling for Jones' resignation (or even refusing to vote for him as President) would be every bit as quixotic as many here think Frerichs' sponsorship of ill-fated bills are."
Have I asked Sen. Frerichs' to call for President Jones' resignation?
No - I've asked at what point does Frerichs realize that Jones is preventing Frerichs from doing the things he wants to do legislatively to serve his district.
I know Frerichs has a four-year term. I'm not attacking him by asking these questions, because attacking him now, even if I were so inclined, wouldn't make any difference.
I also realize that, if the Democrats are ever going to revolt against Jones, right now they have as much leverage as they'll ever have. Jones wants lots of things this session (GRT, etc.) and is losing support within his own caucus.
In addition, I know that Frerichs may be putting pressure on Jones behind the scenes. But if this session ends, and Jones continues to kill legislation that matters to the 52nd District, at what point is it fair to start asking about the importance of Frerichs voting for him for President.
Again, I'll reiterate - I want Frerichs to get things done for this District - we need it. I'm just not seeing it yet.
So Gordy, I'm confused. What, exactly, is it you want Mike to do? I'm not talking about a general attitude or mind set or philosophy here; no vague generalities about their relationship. What specific public acts do you want Mike to perform at this time?
The vote for President was almost four months ago. It's over. It's history. It was the first order of business for the session, and will not be revisited this year. What do you want Mike to do about it now?
Mike Frerichs had some very good people work for him and more very good people vote for him. My only wish is that he would indicate he cares about anything from the district other than Mike Frerichs, which he has yet to do through his office. At least with Emil Jones, what you see is what you get.
"So Gordy, I'm confused. What, exactly, is it you want Mike to do? I'm not talking about a general attitude or mind set or philosophy here; no vague generalities about their relationship. What specific public acts do you want Mike to perform at this time?"
Standing with Sen. Forby would be a start.
How did Sen. Frerichs not stand with Sen. Forby? Last I looked Forby didn't ask for Jones' resignation nor did he ask for Jones' leadership to be brought up. Frerichs did stand with Forby by being a Co-Sponsor to SB1592 and voted for both the bill and the admendment to bring ComEd into the rate freeze. So how is Frerichs not standing with Forby and the rest of down state Democrats again?
The trustees are not democratic because some idiots decided to appoint trustees instead of elect them. Who was that again? I honestly don't remember.
From what I've heard, so far Frerichs has had one of the best beginnings of the officials to represent the area in a long time. He goes to fricking everything and he's constantly working his butt off to learn about what's going on in the area.
More needs to be done to increase University funding, but remember we are in the worst period for higher education in the country in ages. The adminstration and previous congress were completely effective in locking out a large section of the lower middle class from premiere institutions of higher education, and you can't blame a freshmen politician for that.
As for the Chief, are you kidding me? Obviously we disagree on whether it is or not, but Frerichs probably believes that the Chief is a detriment to the University (like many of the departments have stated out right). Therefore, you might disagree, but you have to admit that's an item in his favor as far as supporting the university.
Who was that again? I honestly don't remember.
Gov. Edgar.
"How did Sen. Frerichs not stand with Sen. Forby? Last I looked Forby didn't ask for Jones' resignation nor did he ask for Jones' leadership to be brought up. Frerichs did stand with Forby by being a Co-Sponsor to SB1592 and voted for both the bill and the admendment to bring ComEd into the rate freeze. So how is Frerichs not standing with Forby and the rest of down state Democrats again?"
We'll see now that the rate freeze is back in the Senate, with ComEd already included via a House amendment. Will Sen. Frerichs meekly stand aside as President Jones scuttles it yet again, or will he fight for it, as Sen. Forby did last time?
I'm betting that the ComEd freeze doesn't get called in the Senate, and Frerichs issues some statement of mild disappointment, as merely watches as his Senate President - his choice to lead the Senate - ignores the needs of his District yet again. Then, when he runs for re-election, he can brag that he sponsored a rate freeze that never became law, all because the man that Frerichs wants to be Senate President killed it. I'm sure the voters of Frerichs' district will take some small measure of comfort in that, anyway.
"As for the Chief, are you kidding me? Obviously we disagree on whether it is or not, but Frerichs probably believes that the Chief is a detriment to the University (like many of the departments have stated out right)."
That's funny - that's not what he said on the campaign trail last year. Can you show me somewhere that Frerichs thought the UI should dump the Chief? The vast majority of his constituents would be interested in knowing that, if it's true.
"The trustees are not democratic because some idiots decided to appoint trustees instead of elect them. Who was that again? I honestly don't remember."
Actually, it was Sen. Winkel and Gov. Edgar, and they've both said that it was among the actions they regret most while in office. They thought it would insulate the Trustees from politics, ironically. Now they're puppets who can't be allowed to testify before confirmation.
"I'm betting that the ComEd freeze doesn't get called in the Senate, and Frerichs issues some statement of mild disappointment, as merely watches as his Senate President - his choice to lead the Senate - ignores the needs of his District yet again. Then, when he runs for re-election, he can brag that he sponsored a rate freeze that never became law, all because the man that Frerichs wants to be Senate President killed it. I'm sure the voters of Frerichs' district will take some small measure of comfort in that, anyway."
So now we're criticizing Mike for actions that he hasn't taken yet, and may in fact never take, but that you predict he will take, with some of them not even being possible until almost four years from now. You'll perhaps forgive me if I don't place much merit in such critcisms.
Well, Illinipundit.com has been an incredible site for the community so far, but let's remember that while Gordy is an intelligent, balanced, thoughtful guy, it has been supported by some of the most reactionary, bigoted folks in East Central Illinois. So I'm betting that the site will stand idly by the next time national security is cited as a justification to round up Americans of a certain ethnicity and place them in concentration camps.
See, utterly ridiculous argument :P
Please compare and contrast the actions of Sen. Frerichs and Sen. Forby when the rate freeze was killed by President Jones.
Please give me an explanation for why Forby was willing to break with Jones to support the needs of his District, while Frerichs was not.
I keep hearing how Frerichs had his election "bought" and "ham-handed", but I don't recall getting any money from Emil Jones to vote for him. His campaign was financed by Jones, but ultimately the people of the 52nd district voted for him because they believe that his views represent their best interests. He believes that the best interest of this district is to vote the way he has been. All this complaining from the people here sounds like a bunch of sour grapes because the people elected someone who represents the most people in the district, and that view isn't shared by you. It's not like he's doing anything wrong by listening to the majority of the people instead of you. Get over it, Gordy, you just sound bitter...
"All this complaining from the people here sounds like a bunch of sour grapes because the people elected someone who represents the most people in the district, and that view isn't shared by you. It's not like he's doing anything wrong by listening to the majority of the people instead of you. Get over it, Gordy, you just sound bitter..."
He may be listening to a majority of people in his District, but Emil Jones is preventing him from actually taking any action on thier behalf.
I've asked this more than a few times in here: How has his vote for Emil Jones as President of the Senate helped Frerichs' District? I say it hasn't. No one has yet argued that it has. I suspect it's easier to dismiss the question as just my being bitter than to actually address it.
"How has his vote for Emil Jones as President of the Senate helped Frerichs' District? I say it hasn't."
You're right. If he'd voted against Emil for President, this district would be in a much better position right now, because we'd have a Senate President who was openly hostile to us in particular, and actively singling us out for negative and punitive treatment, instead of just treating us like the rest of downstate Illinois. That would be so much better for the district, I wonder why Mike didn't think of it. Live and learn.
"If he'd voted against Emil for President, this district would be in a much better position right now, because we'd have a Senate President who was openly hostile to us in particular, and actively singling us out for negative and punitive treatment, instead of just treating us like the rest of downstate Illinois."
Is there a difference?
Yep, Kevin nailed this one. I'd take it one step further and suggest that Republicans have every reason to goad Frerichs into defying party leadership and alienating himself. They would reason that since Frerichs was elected only because of heavy financial support from Emil Jones/Illinois Democratic Party, then "separating him from the herd" would be an effective strategy toward the goal of replacing him with a Republican next time around.
Because Frerichs hasn't single-handedly affected the outcomes on the rate freeze, trustees vote, HB/SB750, and UI funding after six months in office, you're ready to condemn him. Tough crowd. Remember that Republicans in Springfield can talk tough and wax righteous all they want, but they're still on the outside. Would it be better for our district if Frerichs was out there with them?
"Would it be better for our district if Frerichs was out there with them?"
Again, what would be the difference?
"Again, what would be the difference?"
What are the criteria upon which you base your six-month performance review of Frerichs, keeping in mind that he is a rookie in Springfield?
He's an easy mark -- and by comparison, if Judy Myers had won instead you could always protect her by reminding us that she's in the minority in Springfield, and therefore powerless.
Heck, if I was Mike Frerichs, I might take your unreasonably high expectations as a great compliment.
"What are the criteria upon which you base your six-month performance review of Frerichs, keeping in mind that he is a rookie in Springfield?"
Given my expectations for him, I would like to see some evidence that he's able to accomplish something for his District, either in contravention to his President and/or his majority by working across the aisle to build a bi-partisan coalition, or by convincing them to support something that in the past they hadn't - UI funding increases, perhaps.
He hasn't done it yet, with four very visible failures, but he still has time.
"...by working across the aisle to build a bi-partisan coalition, or by convincing them to support something that in the past they hadn't - UI funding increases, perhaps."
I don't think these are unreasonable goals -- lofty, maybe.
Although it's slightly off-topic, this reminds me of something else I've heard mentioned a lot more by Republicans since November: the need for bipartisan cooperation. Didn't hear much of that back in the days of "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Before you accuse me of more Bush- or Republican-bashing, the reason I bring it up now is because I don't expect this to change with the new leadership in Congress. So does it take guts to cross party lines, or is it a death wish?
"So does it take guts to cross party lines, or is it a death wish?"
You'll notice that I'm also conceding that Frerichs could do some good for his District simply by convincing Jones - although he's been unable to do so on the four highest profiles items I've mentioned before. When the one person standing in the way of Frerichs' goals is a Democrat, bi-partisanship is not required.