Well, other than the budget, this last year I thought medical malpractice was the second-most important thing that needed to be dealt with. Unfortunately, session came and went. We’re going to continue to put pressure on to get something that’s meaningful, long-term, and solves the problem of the cost of medical malpractice insurance and keeps doctors in Illinois. That’s basically what it’s all about.

            It’s not a crisis stage, I guess, throughout the state, or we’d see more of an interest in something being done from the leadership here: the governor, the speaker of the House, the president of the Senate. But once it reaches that same crisis state that we’re experiencing in the Metro East area, Carbondale, Will County [and] Lake County — some of these pocketed areas that seem to have more of a problem — something will finally be done.

Q.        How does the Republican victory in the 5th District Illinois Supreme Court race affect the issue?

            It sends a huge message. That was the issue in the race, other than the fact that Lloyd Karmeier is just a quality, classy person who was an outstanding judge in his own right. He deserved the election just based on that. But medical malpractice became a part of it. And Gordon Maag tried to grab it. He tried to get hold of it, too, and all this advertising that he did, material that he sent out, but it didn’t stick. It didn’t work because the funding for his campaign came from the very people who are opposed to anything that would be significant. So it was a referendum on medical malpractice, that race.

Q.        Can you call the race a referendum on medical malpractice when the most visible campaign ads had to do with the two candidates’ records on sex offenders?

            Deep down, the issue was the people of southern Illinois, where they see doctors leaving their communities, and the access, not only the quality, but basic access to health care being impacted because of the physicians leaving the state. That was the underlying issue, that the hospital association and the doctors, the health care industry was able to communicate that it was important for Lloyd Karmeier.

            To me, that was the driving issue, even though we had all this. I think there was a lot of confusion. People watched the ads, they didn’t really understand. And then, of course, it all started to come out that the campaign advertising had reached a very questionable level by the bar association and others. So I think people tuned those out.

Q.        The major impasse between the two parties involves capping plaintiff awards for pain and suffering. Is there something that can be done short of that or are caps the only solution?

            I think it's been proven in other states that caps work. They help drive down costs and also give the insurance industry a means to be able to stave their risk. What is their potential for risk? Whether it’s a $1 million cap or a $250,000 cap or whatever it might be, I think it’s important to establish something.

            We’ve seen it work in 24 other states, and I think it could work very well here. And that, to me, is the issue of medical malpractice, establishing some form of cap. We could do this with a constitutional amendment or we could do it legislatively. If there’s some question to what the [state] Supreme Court might rule, we could do a constitutional amendment, but so far we’re getting resistance by the leadership.

Q.        How much progress has the state made toward eliminating what was being called a record $5 billion budget deficit two years ago?

            We’ve made some progress, but only because, I think, we went into extra session days. This coming session, we’re going to have to deal with the whole issue again. That’s been an issue and a contention I’ve had since day one. The first call I made to the governor,  [I said] “We have a $5 billion deficit. I want to work with you. I want to be part of the solution. I’m in the minority. I know what that means. The only thing I ask is no new programs, no new spending.” He trots out his first budget two years ago of more programs, more new spending, and we just took an exception to that and have been arguing that every since.

            And all of this is predicated on one-time revenue sources, the scheme of budget-balancing with the pension money. That’s gone away. All the fees and all the extraction of money [from dedicated funds], that one-time availability is gone. The governor, unfortunately, doesn’t have the fiscal restraint and discipline that is needed to do the things that Jim Edgar did when [he was called] Governor No and he made those tough decisions. We haven’t had that by this governor.

Q.        Last year, the governor wanted to close prisons in Vandalia, St. Charles and Pontiac. Will we see proposed closing of state facilities in Republican territory again this year?

            I would be very surprised. Ironically, all three of those prisons you mentioned were in Republican Senate districts. Of course, the governor didn’t know where they were, you know. But, no, I’d be surprised if he took that direction again. I think he lost that battle and he lost it big time, both in the legislature and in the public. And I think that he doesn’t want to go through that again. Nor do I. And we’ve had that conversation, privately, the governor and I. So I feel comfortable he is not going to target anything such as Vandalia, Pontiac or St. Charles. There may be other facilities out there. It might be you tomorrow, that kind of thing. So beware. But I don’t think he’ll go down that same path again, especially if we are able, and it looks like we are, to maintain this coalition of the speaker, myself and Tom Cross.

Q.        What is the staying power of that coalition? Is it strictly budget-related, because the two parties have different ideals when it comes to other subjects?

            There are some differences, no doubt about it, medical malpractice being one of them. But I think a lot of good public policy came from those 54 days of overtime. We unfortunately had to have 60-some memorandums of understanding signed by the governor. That’s not the way I’d like to do business. That’s the way we think we have to with this administration.

            The road fund diversions were brought to a halt. The debt responsibility act, which we think is excellent public policy, the facility closure act, those kinds of issues all came out of that 54-day extension and were cooperative efforts between the leaders, without, of course, the president of the Senate and the governor.

            I think those will serve the people well for a long time and I see no reason why [the coalition would end] and I think the speaker feels the same way. The conversation I’ve had with him is, “What happens the second Wednesday of January when we all get sworn in? Are we back to the back bench in the minority?” And his attitude is no. He thought that a lot of good came from our cooperative effort.

Q.        Are memorandums of understanding going to become common practice for agreements legislators have with the governor and his staff?

            I think until they prove that they can be trusted and do the things that they’ve committed to do. That’s what brought about the memorandums of understanding. That’s the only reason. And we’re liable to start doing that with the Senate president, because we’ve had some problems, commitments he made during the regular session and the overtime session on bills that would be called that he’s not living up to.

            You’re only as good as your word around here and when that goes away you get these issues like memorandums of understanding and you get a little lack of cooperative effort between all parties working together.

Q.        That brings up a style question. You’re often portrayed as more combative than House Republican Leader Tom Cross.

            That’s not my personality, though. You don’t know me, but people that do [say] this is not Frank. But I have some passion about my beliefs. I really, truly do. I have some principles that guided me when I came here. And they still do. So when somebody goes a different direction than I think we should, I’m going to stand up and voice my opposition and concern. And that’s what I’ve done. I’ve done it differently at different times. The means of how I project it sometimes is different. I think that’s the way I’ll be. That’s just me. That’s the way I am.

Q.        Is that indicative of different atmospheres in the House and Senate? You hinted at some tension with the Senate president. Are there different working environments for Republicans in each chamber?

            We’re very diverse, our caucus. And we believe people should vote their district. They should vote their conscience. They should vote their beliefs and philosophy. It just so happens that I think on a lot of issues we’re able to unite everybody and stick together pretty good. We’ve had a decent history of that. Maybe it’s smaller numbers. Maybe it’s the way we operate. I don’t know. I’m very pleased with the way this caucus sticks together when they believe they’re right. And when we do that we’re pretty effective.

Q.        Should the state or Illinois municipalities look for an expansion of gambling to aid their budgets, philosophically or realistically?

            Members in our caucus have different views on this. But I’ve not shut the door on what we could consider an expansion of gambling. Now, traditionally, I’ve not been a big proponent of that. Horse racing is important, I think, to the economy of Illinois, and that’s something that I’ve been pretty active in. But casinos, riverboats, over the years I’ve been here I’ve been all over the map on this. I’m not really somebody who thinks it’s a good thing. But in my position as leader I think I have to take a different approach and that’s why I say I’m not shutting the door.

            The way it’s currently structured, the proposal that’s being discussed, I don’t know if we’ll see it this spring or not. Carving out special considerations for the Chicago boat, casino [is] actually what it’ll be, a land based casino. It’s really a huge step. That has some concern for us.

            Public ownership, appointment of the oversight board by the mayor, taking that responsibility, some of that, away from the gaming board. I think that doesn’t sell well in this caucus.

Q.        You, and Senate Republicans in general, don’t think Chicago should own a license. Are their specific problems with Chicago or do you think no city should own a license?

            I just think public ownership, in general, is a problem. That would be new ground broke, nationally. There’s no public ownership of casinos in any state.

Q.        So you wouldn’t support state ownership either?

            No.

Q.        How big of a problem is pension funding?

            It’s a big problem. And that’s something, again, that we did in the overtime session last year. The governor wanted to forgive payments and that’s how we got into this problem to begin with. We aren’t living up to the obligation of what makes the pension system sound. We were making progress. When we passed that bill that required the continuing appropriation for the pensions — that put us on the track of making some progress. Now, of course, we’re talking about diverting from that. That would be bad public policy. We shouldn’t be doing that. And it does obviously impact our ability to spend money on other programs, but it is an obligation of the state and, if we don’t pay it, somebody will at some point in time. We shouldn’t leave that obligation to a future generation or a future governor or a future General Assembly. We should live [up to] that obligation to make those pension systems as sound as we can.

Q.        Republicans picked up one seat in the Senate. Democrats still have a three-vote edge. Practically speaking, what does that mean?

            It’s movement. That’s what we had to have. Obviously, we would have liked to have more, but we got one. Politics is about addition, not subtraction, especially if you’re trying to take back control. We kept Pam Althoff. They spent $1 million trying to beat Pam Althoff. And because of her work in the district and the organization that she put together, her committee, she withstood all that. And we were able to pick up one additional seat in a very important race in Majority Leader Pat Welch’s district.

            And in ’06 the remaining two-thirds of the Senate is up again, including the 49th District, which, because of the death of Sen. [Vince] Demuzio, will be up again. So there are other opportunities out there for us, and we’re looking forward to advancing more numbers in ’06.

Q.        You’re the only legislative leader from downstate. Do you feel there are certain issues you have to take the lead on?

            Having somebody from downstate in the room when the final decisions are made, I think, is good for far downstate. I think it’s good for the state as a whole. I mean, the geographic region of the state and the power that comes from the leadership in this state, the governor, the House speaker and the Senate president all being from Chicago with Chicago interests, in my mind is not good. That was an issue in the election and it resonated out there. People understand that some of the agenda that is put forth by the leadership of the Democratic Party currently is not in step with what I think is mainstream thinking for the people of Illinois.

Q.        Does that mean too much attention and resources for Chicago and not enough for the rest of Illinois?

            Yeah, I’d say that’s a big part of it. The community colleges are a perfect example. They ended up getting additional funds for the community colleges of the city of Chicago while the rest of the community colleges didn’t. Chicago State continues to get more additional funding when they want to cut other universities in this state. It definitely is an issue and it creates a ripple in this caucus when those kinds of things go on.

Q.        When should the governor play a role in advancing or halting legislation? Is gambling expansion a prime example?

            He should be leading the charge. And he hasn’t.

            I think he has to be directly involved and with an understanding, I think, from members of his own party that he’s going to sign legislation or certainly support it before it can move forward.

Q.        So not necessarily in public, but let the members know?

            I think he’s better off being public. Just be out there. Lead. He needs to be carrying the flag and at this point he hasn’t.

Q.        How do you describe your leadership style and how does it compare or contrast to the style of your predecessor, James “Pate” Philip?

            I’d like to think that I’m a bottom-up leader. We have caucuses. We have very diverse opinions, and we give everybody an opportunity to participate. I delegate an awful lot of authority to members, which is helpful to me and to members, giving them a stake in what goes on. Contrasting to Pate? Pate was unique in his own way, for sure. But he was also effective. I don’t know that I follow that way of doing business.

            Not comparing myself to Pate, but I think that I communicate more with members. I’d like to think I do. I hope they think I do. I think that’s important, to give a responsibility to your caucus members, bring them in to being responsible. My spokesmen on committees have a lot to say about how we decide public policy in our caucus and when we take a united stance. And it’s based predominately on my members and their attitude and their ability to communicate their own concern.

Q.        The seat you picked up came at the defeat of Pat Welch, who, as an appropriations chairman, helped carry Gov. Blagojevich's budgets. Did unpopular fees, such a rolling stock, figure in his defeat?

            We got a candidate out of that. The guy that ran was in the trucking industry. He saw first-hand the devastation of the legislation that was pushed by the administration and sponsored by the majority and that was an issue in the campaign, very definitely. It was all about jobs, primarily.

Q.        Will the Senate Democrats have someone who wants to take Welch’s role?

            I think that whoever it is will be very careful and maybe a little more concerned about the short- and long-term impact of what they’re doing. And I would like to think the governor would be the same way. And I’ve had those conversations with him, the governor. And I don’t know whether it falls on deaf ears or not. We’ll soon find out. I assume the budget will be delivered in February.

Q.        In two years there will be a race for governor and two-thirds of the Senate will be up for re-election? Will Alan Keyes be a factor? He says he wants to help rebuild the Illinois Republican Party? Will he have a role?

            If he’s about building the party and wants to be part of a positive influence, then we’ll welcome that. Once again, we’re about addition, not subtraction. We would certainly welcome his input, if that’s his interest.

Go to questions and answers with:
Tom Cross >>>>>>>>>>

Go to questions and answers with:
Emil Jones >>>>>>>>>>

Go to questions and answers with:
Michael Madigan >>>>>>>>>>

Click here to go to pdf of complete Q&A text.

Illinois Issues, January 2005

For information about how to subcribe to Illinois Issues go to:
http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/subscribe/subscribe.html

Go to Illinois Issues blog at http://illinoisissuesblog.blogspot.com/

Write a letter to the editor
I would like to comment on this article
(Please state month and author of article.)
Ask a staff member
Home