SPECIAL SESSIONS OF THE SIXTIETH 

 GENERAL ASSEMBLY 



By THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE 



^^^^. HE first Special Session met on 

 ^*~Y^ M*y 20 and the second on 



\J June 23. Both adjourned sine 

 die in the early morning of July 1. While 

 they dealt with a number of highly con- 

 troversial problems, comparatively few 

 important measures were enacted. 



Both Special Sessions were called pri- 

 marily for the purpose of providing addi- 

 tionaj* revenues for relief, particularly in 

 the City of Chicago. The Governor rec- 

 ommended, and the General Assembly 

 promptly passed, legislation continuing 

 the tax of 3% on public utility services 

 and providing for payment of the pro- 

 ceeds of the tax to the State Relief Fund, 

 and legislation appropriating an addi- 

 tional $4,500,000 from state funds to be 

 expended at the rate of $500,000 month- 

 ly. This appropriation increased the 

 state's contribution for relief to $3,500,- 

 000 per month for the nine months. May 

 to January, inclusive. 



Opposition Developed 



The Governor had further recom- 

 mended the enactment of legislation to 

 enable communities to raise additional 

 revenues for relief or to divert or borrow 

 from their other funds for this purpose. 

 Opposition to this recommendation quick- 

 ly developed and the General Assembly 

 turned its attention to an attempt to dis- 

 cover what further state funds might be 

 available for relief. 



Several hearings were held at which 

 representatives of the state offices and de- 

 partments appeared and gave conflicting 

 testimony as to the state revenues avail- 

 able or likely to be available for further 

 appropriations. Representatives of the 

 faction seeking additional state funds and 

 of the faction favoring legislation en- 

 abling local communities to provide addi- 

 tional funds continued to argue about the 

 ability of the state and local communities 

 to provide further funds and to intro- 

 duce new proposals to June 15, upon 

 which date all measures which would en- 

 able local units to raise additional funds 

 for relief were tabled. 



About this date there were rumors of 

 and newspaper references to conferences 

 between the Governor of the state and 

 the Mayor of the City of Chicago, with 

 their advisers and legislative representa- 

 tives, looking toward some agreed pro- 

 gram of legislation. Later it was reported 

 that an agreement had been reached 

 which at least in part contemplated the 



calling of a second session for the pur- 

 pose of appropriating additional state 

 funds for relief, and of appropriating 

 state funds for the construction of addi- 

 tional state buildings ; the enactment of a 

 drivers' license law, the license to be is- 

 sued by the Secretary of State and the en- 

 forcement to be by the highway police of 

 the Department of Public Works and 

 Buildings; the enactment of legislation 

 authorizing the City of Chicago to divert 

 a portion of its gasoline tax money for 

 relief purposes and the enactment of H. 

 B. 67 restoring in a large measure author- 

 ity over the administration of relief to 

 the Illinois Emergency Relief Commis- 

 sion. 



While the Association has no definite 

 knowledge of any agreement or agreed 

 program, a second Special Session was 

 called to convene June 23, and in a little 

 more than a week thereafter the legisla- 

 ture had appropriated state funds for re- 

 lief, had appropriated additional state 

 funds for state buildings, had enacted the 

 drivers' license legislation, had authorized 

 the City of Chicago to divert gasoline tax 

 funds for relief, and had enacted H. B. 

 67 restoring authority to the Illinois 

 Emergency Relief Commission. 



Relief Legislation 

 The Association unsuccessfully op- 

 posed the legislation restoring a large 

 measure of authority over the administra- 

 tion of relief to the Illinois Emergency 

 Relief Commission. This legislation (H. 

 B. 67) provides that in townships and 

 other local governmental units receiving 

 state or federal funds, the administration 



"Juft OS »oon ai the govvrnmcnt ttorts poyine thoi* old og« 

 BOTtiom Vm going bock to cell«qe ond cemploto my»niory*ar 



of relief shall be subject to the super- 

 vision of the Commission and "relief ad- 

 ministered by such units shall be in ac- 

 cordance with the rules and regulations 

 of the Commission." If any such govern- 

 mental unit fails to comply with the rules 

 and regulations of the Commission, then 

 further state or federal funds or aid must 

 be withheld until the unit does comply 

 with such rules and regulations. 

 Local Control Best 



The Association does not doubt that in 

 some, perhaps many, localities, under the 

 present methods of administering relief, 

 there has been waste, inefficiency and op- 

 portunity for fraud. However, it remem- 

 bers the complaints made when relief was 

 administered directly by the Illinois Emer- 

 gency Relief Commission. It believes 

 that the present system of local respon- 

 sibility for financing as well as admin- 

 istering relief is in most respects superior 

 to the former centralized system under the 

 Relief Commission. In the conviction 

 that the people of local units know their 

 own people and their own problems bet- 

 ter than any centralized authority can, the 

 Association has been willing to grant the 

 state or other centralized administration 

 only such supervisory authority as will 

 suffice to correct manifest injustice in 

 denying relief and to prevent waste or 

 fraud or the use of relief for political 

 purposes. 



The Association is particularly opposed 

 to granting to the Illinois Emergency Re- 

 lief Commission authority to fijc or pre- 

 scribe standards of relief. In many cases 

 such standards as prescribed by the Com- 

 mission have given the recipients more 

 than they were able or willing to work to 

 earn and more than many others paying 

 taxes to provide for relief have been able 

 to earn. Such standards of relief, in the 

 opinion of the Association, rob recipients 

 of their self-respect and tend to induce 

 pauperism by taking away the last incen- 

 tive of such persons to provide for them- 

 selves. Such standards appear to be the 

 surest way of perpetuating and intensify- 

 ing the problems of relief and unemploy- 

 ment and of creating a permanent class 

 of able-bodied paupers likely to include 

 not only the present adults in such fam- 

 ilies but also their children after them. 



The Association questions the necessity 

 for doubling the percentage of relief 

 funds available for costs of administra- 

 tion. The legislation enacted in the Gen- 



L A. A. RECORD 



